2024 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 14360
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramji Verma – Appellant
Versus
Rajesh Kumar Yadav – Respondent
MAC/1321/2015
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 1320 of 2015 Pooran Verma S/o Dinesh Verma, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Bhulatola, Police Station and Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant Versus
1. Rajesh Kumar Yadav S/o Pradeep Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, 2. Measures’ M/s J.C.C. India Private Limited, Both R/o 90 Light Industrial Area, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
3. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents MAC No. 1321 of 2015
1. Ramji Verma S/o Late Dukhu Ram Verma, Aged About 52 Years, 2. Smt. Geeta Bai W/o Ramji Verma, Aged About 47 Years, 3. Ku. Ketki Verma D/o Ramji Verma, Aged About 18 Years, 4. Smt. Sharda Verma W/o Late Virendra Verma, Aged About
25 Years, 5. Ku. Thaneshwari D/o Late Virendra Verma, Aged About 5 Years, 6. Ku. Pratima D/o Late Virendra Verma, Aged About 3 Years, 7. Ku. Nagina D/o Late Virendra Verma, Aged About 01 month.
Appellant No.5, 6 & 7 are minor represented through mother Smt. Sharda Verma W/o Late Virendra Verma, All resident of Village Vikrampur, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellants Versus
1. Rajesh Kumar Yadav S/o Pradeep Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, (wrongly mentioned as District Rajnandgaon in the award)
2. M/s J.C.C. India Private Limited, Both R/o 90 Light Industrial Area, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
3. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 & 2 : None, though served.
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Qamarul Aziz, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board
25.04.2024
1. By this common judgment, M.A.(C) No. 1320 of 2015 and M.A.(C) No.1321 of 2015 are being disposed of as the same are arising out of same accident.
2. MAC No. 1320 of 2015 is filed by the appellant (Pooran Verma)/injured claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “M.V. Act”) arises out of the award dated 23.09.2015 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.73 of 2014, whereby claim petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
3. MAC No. 1321 of 2015 is filed by the appellants/claimants (legal representatives of deceased Virendra Verma) under Section 173 of the M.V. Act arises out of the award dated 22.07.2015 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No.51 of 2014, whereby claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants has been dismissed.
4. Brief facts for disposal of both the appeals, are that, on
30.06.2014, at about 5.00 AM, Kanhaiya Verma along with Pooran Verma and Virendra Verma was going from Nagpur to Apollo Hospital, Bhilai on a motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-31-EC-7429. When they reached to over-bridge at Village Tumdibod, the said motorcycle was dashed with a Trailor bearing registration No.CG-04-JB- 1232, which was parked by respondent No.1 Rajesh Kumar Yadav on the road unsafely and carelessly without any indicators, as a result of which, Kanhaiya Verma and Virendra Verma died on the spot and Pooran Verma suffered grievous injuries. Thereafter, Crime No.229 of 2014 was registered against respondent No.1 at Police Station Dongargaon for the offence punishable under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”).
5. In MAC No.1320 of 2015 arising out of Claim Case No.73 of 2014, after recovery from injuries, appellant (Pooran Verma) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act seeking total compensation of Rs.77,90,000/- pleading therein that in motor accident, he suffered fracture injury over his shoulder, left skepula and cervical spine leading to permanent disability. Prior to date of accident, appellant was working as Labourer