NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 483 of 2016

1. Hara Saling S/o Shri Murli Saling, Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Chak-

bahal, Panchayat- Rangali, Tah. Sohela, Civil And Revenue Distt. Bargarh Orrisa

2. Sarojani Saling W/o Hara Saling, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Chakbahal, Panchayat- Rangali, Tah. Sohela, Civil And Rev-

enue Distt. Bargarh Orrisa ---- Appellants Versus

1. Narayan Manjhi S/o Nayak Manjhi, Aged About 37 Years Kenal Chowck, Bargarh, Distt. Bargarh Orrisa

2. Nilay Kumar Mahanti S/o Jagdishchandra Mahanti, R/o Shaktinagar, Bar-

garh, Distt. Bargarh Orrisa

3. United India Insurance Comp. Ltd., Mandal Office Krishna Complex, In Front Of Court, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh Insurance Com.

---- Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

Order on Board

28/02/2024

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) has been filed by the appellants/claimants being aggrieved by the award dated 12.01.2016 passed by Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 531/2015.

2. Brief fact of the case is that on 09.06.2015 at about 7:30 PM, the deceased namely Khirodro with his relative namely Kundado, were returning from Saraypali to his village in motor cycle, when they reached village Chuipali, N.H. 53 near Raphel Chowk, at that time the Respondent No. 1 dashed them by Mahindra Pick-up bearing No. O.R. 17-H/3099 due to his rash and negligent driving. As a result of which Khirodro sustained severe injuries and died on the Hospital.

3. As per the pleadings, the deceased was aged about 21 years and was in business and getting Rs. 800 to Rs. 1,000/- daily. The appellants/claimants had claimed Rs.24,50,000/- as compensation before the Tribunal.

4. The Respondent No.1 & 2 filed their written statement and denied the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the responsibility lies with the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle driver and three persons were travelling in the motorcycle. Therefore, there was no negligence on the part of Respondent No.1. The fitness certificate and Insurance certificate in respect of the vehicle in question were valid and effective. The Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are not liable to pay any compensation, therefore a prayer has been made to dismiss the claim.

5. The Respondent No.3/Insurance Company denied the contents of the claim and also contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving license at the time of accident, as such, Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed 6 issues and after appreciating the material available on record decided the same in favour of the appellant/claimant holding Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 liable to pay the compensation.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the award impugned has been passed by the Tribunal ignoring the basic principles governing the law of compensation. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed a grave error in assessing the compensation and stated that learned Tribunal committed an error in holding the monthly income of the deceased to Rs. 5000/- per month and deducted ½ towards personal expenses whereas the deduction for personal expenses should be of 1/3^rd of monthly income. He also submits that learned Tribunal wrongly applied multiplier of 11, whereas at the time of accident the age of the deceased was 21 years, which is on lower side and also awarded less in all other heads, which may be enhanced suitably.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.3/Insurance Company submits that there was no document regarding earning of the deceased. He was aged about 21 years and no documentary evidence was brought on record to substantiate the pleadings with regard