Order on Board

17/09/2021

1. Appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'Act of 1988') seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, (CG) (for short, 'Tribunal') vide award dated 17.03.2017 in Claim Case No.68/2016, whereby Tribunal allowed application filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.7,73,575/- in fatal accident case.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 03.01.2016 Mohan Lal Sahu along-with his wife was going to village Gatapara from Kurud on motorcycle, while so, when reached near village -Bagaud, one another motor cycle bearing registration No.CG/05/X/8265 (for short, ‘offending vehicle), driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently dashed motorcycle of Mohan Lal Sahu and caused accident. In aforementioned accident, he suffered grievous injuries on his head and became unconscious. He was taken to Community Health Centre, Kurud, he was referred to Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur. During the course of treatment, he succumbed to injuries on 13.01.2016.

3. Claimants, who are widow, minor child and parents of deceased, filed an application under Section 166 the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.28,62,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident, deceased was working as ‘Tailor’ and earning Rs.500/- to 600/- per day. They expended Rs.2,50,000/- towards treatment of deceased. They were dependent upon income of deceased.

4. Non-applicant No.1/owner-driver of offending vehicle, submitted reply to application, denied the facts pleaded therein. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident, non-applicant No.1 was possessed with valid and effective driving license. Offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Hence, liability if any to pay the amount of compensation would be of Insurance company.

5. Non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company submitted its reply and resisted the claim. It was further pleaded that accident was a result of head on collision between two motorcycles claim application is not maintainable. Non-applicant No.1 was not possessed with valid and effective driving license, as such there was breach of policy conditions. Hence, insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured.

6. Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, Tribunal held that Mohan Lal Sahu died on account of motor accidental injuries, due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1. Breach of policy condition was not found to be proved. Tribunal while assessing income of deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month, awarded total compensation of Rs.7,75,575/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a and fastened liability upon non-applicant Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally to satisfy the amount of compensation.

7. Learned counsel for appellants/claimants would submit that Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation. Tribunal erred in assessing monthly income of deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month only, overlooking the nature of occupation, date of accident and statement made by claimants and their witnesses that deceased was working as 'Tailor’. Tribunal not awarded any amount towards future prospects, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi1, amount awarded under other conventional heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced in light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors2.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company submits that claimants failed to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased by placing admissible piece of evidence on record. In absence of any proof of income, Tribunal justified in assessing income of deceased as Rs.3,000/- p