Order on Board

02/09/2021

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 31.10.2015 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pendra Road, district Bilaspur C.G. (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in claim case no. 25/2014, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1988”) in part, awarded Rs. 6,45,000/- as total compensation in fatal accident case with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are, that on 03.01.2014 Sher Singh was travelling on truck bearing registration number CG13 ZB 0171 (henceforth “offending truck”). On the way non-applicant 1 drove the offending truck rashly and negligently and caused accident with tree standing on road side. In the said accident, Sher Singh suffered grievous injuries on his person and succumbed to those injuries on spot.

3. Appellants-claimants who are widow and child of late Sher Singh filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 25 Lakh on the grounds that deceased on the date of accident was working as helper and coolie thereby earning Rs. 9,000/- per month. They were dependent upon the income of deceased.

4. Non-applicant 1 submitted reply to the claim application resisting the claim, it was further pleaded that the accident was not as a result of negligent driving of non-applicant 1. He was possessed with valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and the offending truck was insured with non-applicant 3-Insurance Company.

5. Non-applicant 2 owner of the offending truck submitted its reply separately pleading therein that on the date of accident, offending truck was insured with non-applicant 3. Non-applicant 1 was possessed with valid and effective driving licence, as such, liability to satisfy the amount of compensation would be of non-applicant 3/

Insurance Company.

6. Non-applicant 3/ Insurance Company submitted reply resisting the claim, it was further pleaded that offending vehicle was being plied in breach of policy conditions. Income of the deceased pleaded in the claim application is highly exaggerated.

7. Learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by the respective parties held that late Sher Singh died on account of motor accidental injuries due to rash and negligent driving of offending truck by non-applicant 1. Breach of policy conditions was not found to be proved, while assessing monthly income of deceased as Rs. 3,000/-, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded total sum of Rs. 6,45,000/-.

8. Mr. F.S. Khare, learned counsel for the appellants- claimants would submit that income of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal is much on lower side. Deceased on the date of accident was an able- bodied person aged about 25 years and looking to the date of accident Claims Tribunal ought to have accepted income of deceased as pleaded in the claim application and stated by witnesses examined on behalf of claimants. He further pointed out that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards future prospects and awarded meagre amount of compensation on other conventional heads. He submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate and meagre sum of Rs. 5000/- towards funeral expenses is awarded.

He submits that amount of compensation be suitably enhanced.

9. Mr. S.S. Marhas, learned counsel for Respondent 3-Insurance Company would submit that appellants-claimants failed to produced any reliable piece of evidence to prove income of deceased, in absence of any admissible piece of evidence, Claims Tribunal justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. Tribunal has not deducted any amount towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. He submits that the amount of compensation towards loss of consortium