NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

MAC No.1035 of 2014

1. Akti Ram S/o Shri Tukru Ram, Aged About 48 Years, Caste- Yadav.

2. Rukmani Yadav W/o Shri Akti Ram Yadav Aged About 44 Years.

Both are R/o. Village- Sapia, Tah. Malkharouda, Distt. Janjgir-Champa

C.G.

---- Appellants

Versus

1. Shivmani Yadav S/o Sudama Yadav Aged About 35 Years, Occupation-

Vehicle Driver, R/o Raigarh Road, Kharsia, Tah. Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh

C.G.

2. Sunil Sharma S/o Mahaveer Sharma Aged About 32 Years, Occupation-

Owner of the Vehicle, R/o Dabhra Road, Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

3. Shri Ram General Insu. Co. Ltd. E-8, EPIP RICO, Seetapura, Jaipur,

Rajasthan-302 022 (India).

---- Respondents

For Appellants : Shri Abhishek Saraf, Advocate.

For Respondents No.1 & 2

:

Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate.

For Respondent No.3.

:

Shri Deepak Gupta, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Order on Board

17.09.2019

1. Appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') challenging the

impugned award dated 14.08.2014 passed by learned Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, C.G (in short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case

No.16/2013, whereby the Tribunal allowed claim application in part,

awarded total sum of Rs.2,42,000/- as compensation in a death case

along with interest @ 6% p.a. and fastened liability upon non-applicants

therein to pay the amount of compensation.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 24.01.2013

deceased -Sadhram Yadav was going on his bicycle towards Raigarh

Chowk College and when he reached near Raigarh Chowk, one Truck

Bearing registration No. CG/13/D/1884 (for short 'offending vehicle'),

driven by non-applicant no.1- Shivmani Yadav, dashed his motorcycle,

as a result said - Sadhram Yadav suffered grievous injuries over his

person and succumbed to those injuries on spot. Incident was reported

to concerned police station based on which criminal case was registered

against driver of offending vehicle.

3. Claimants, who are parents of deceased, have filed a claim application

under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the competent Claims

Tribunal claiming Rs.44,26,000/- as compensation on the grounds

mentioned therein.

4. Non-applicant Nos.1 & 2/respondent Nos.1 & 2 -herein (driver & owner of

offending vehicle) submitted reply to claim application and denied all

adverse averments made therein including fact of accident from

offending vehicle. They pleaded that on the date of accident, deceased

himself was riding his bicycle in middle of road, therefore, he himself was

responsible for the accident. It was further pleaded that while engaging

non-applicant no.1 as driver, owner of offending vehicle has not only

perused his driving license but also satisfied himself by taking his driving

test. Lastly it was pleaded that as on the date of accident, offending

vehicle was insured with respondent no.3/insurance company, therefore,

liability, if any, would be on insurance company.

5. Non -applicant No.3/Insurance Company submitted its reply to claim

application wherein it not admitted the fact that offending vehicle was

insured with it till investigation and also accidental death of deceased

Sadhram Yadav. It was pleaded that on the date of accident deceased

was unemployed and amount of compensation claimed is on higher side.

It was further pleaded that there was violation of conditions of the

insurance policy as on the date of accident driver of offending vehicle

was not having valid and effective driving license and there was no valid

permit and fitness certificate, therefore, claimants are not entitled for any

amount of compensation from it.

6. Learned Claims Tribunal on appre