Advocates:
['ANAND KESHARWANI', '', 'S D SINGH', 'VINEET KUMAR PANDEY', 'SUMIT JHANWAR']

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

MAC No.479 of 2015

{Arising out of order dated 21.11.2014 passed by the Second Additional Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No.22 of

2013}

1.

Pekram S/o Jagannathiya Kurre, Aged About 40 Years

2.

Smt. Rammati W/o Pekram Kurre, Aged About 39 Years

3.

Both R/o Village Sardhabhatha, Tahsil and Police Station Bilaigarh,

District (Revenue and Civil) Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

---- Appellants

Versus

1.

Bishesar Ratre S/o Ramgopal Ratre, Aged About 24 Years, Caste

Satnami, R/o Village Hirri, Tahsil Sarangarh, District (Revenue and Civil)

Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

2.

IFFCO TOKYA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, R/o 3rd

Floor, Shop No. 345-347, Lalganga Shoping Mal, G.I. Road, Raipur

District (Revenue and Civil) Raipur Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

For Appellants

:

Shri Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate

For Respondents

:

None

Hon'ble Shri P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice

01.02.2021

1.

Rejection of the claim petition preferred by the Appellants in terms of

Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1973 (henceforth 'M.V. Act')

made the Claimants to approach this Court by way of this appeal.

2.

The matter pertains to the accident occurred on 30.04.2008. The

deceased by name, Basant Kumar Kurre, was travelling as a pillion rider

on the motorcycle bearing No.CG-13/H/1322 ridden by one Shailesh

Kumar Ratre, owned by the 1^st Respondent and insured by the 2^nd

Respondent. On their way back home, when they reached the place of

occurrence, allegedly because of the glare of the head lights of some

2

vehicle coming from the opposite side, the rider Shailesh Kumar Ratre

lost his sight on the road and both the rider and pillion rider fell down,

sustaining fatal injuries, leading to their death. This was sought to be

compensated by filing claim petitions by the legal heirs of the rider being

Claim Case No.23 of 2013 (Smt. Rajinbai v. IFFCO Tokyo General

Insurance Company Limited) and the Claimants/legal heirs of the

deceased pillion rider being Claim Case No.22 of 2013 (Pekram and

Another v. Bishesar Ratre and Another) under Section 163-A of the M.V.

Act. The claim was resisted from the part of the insurer on various

grounds including that the rider of the motorcycle was not having valid

driving licence, but for a learner's licence. It was also contended that the

claim was not maintainable in view of the higher income of the deceased

as admitted and pleaded from the part of the Claimants. Both the claim

petitions were tried together and evidence was led accordingly. On

conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal held that as per the pleadings and

evidence brought on record, the deceased was having an income of

Rs.4,500/- per month as a 'motorcycle mechanic'. Observing the settled

position of law, that such a claim (where the annual income exceeds

Rs.40,000/-) could not be entertained under Section 163-A of the M.V.

Act, the claim petitions were dismissed, which forms the subject matter of

challenge in this appeal, in respect of the death of the pillion rider.

3.

Shri Vineet Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for the

Appellants/Claimants submits that the monthly income was not proved

properly to sustain the rejection ordered by the Tribunal. But on going

through the materials on record, it is seen that there were specific

pleadings raised by the Claimants themselves as to the engagement and

the monthly income obtained by the deceased pillion rider. The admission

3

is obviously to the extent that the deceased was having an annual

income of much more than Rs.40,000/- stated as obtained from his

engagement as a motorcycle mechanic. Evidence was adduced before

the Tribunal in this regard as well. It is on the basis of the said pleading