Chhattisgarh High Court
MA/226/2002 of NEW INDIA INSURENCE COMPANY Vs SMT.B.RADHAMMA AND OTHERS on 16 December 2011
COURT ICATURE AT BIL CI-II-IATTISGARH MisyxApeal No. gab /2002 x‘ If,‘ APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICL ACT, 1988 (Appeal Valued ,Wf’ at Bs.6,00,0(19}-r Appellant Non-Applicant N0.2/fii/Ianager, The New India _ Assurance Co.Ltd., Tara Complex, G.E.Road," Power
IN THF HIGH COURTICATURE AT BILCI-II-IATTISGARH
MisyxApealB No. gab /2002x
‘
‘
If,ACT, 1988
APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICL(Appeal[Valued]at Bs.6,00,0(19}-r , ,Wf’
Appellant
_
Non-Applicant N0.2/fii/Ianager,The New
The New New IndiaAssurance Co.Ltd.,Tara Complex, G.E.Road,Power h0use,BhilaiTahsil & DisttzDurg (CG)
Assurance Co.Ltd.,
"
.
VERsUS
Respondent No.1. Late MtBRadhamma W/o.
Claimant No.1
R.G. Nair Aged about 45 years, R/o.Block No 4C/13Sector-8 BhilaiTehs11 & Distt Durg (CG)
‘“
f/
Respondent No.2Claimant No.2
Ca/Hl: Sree Vldhya D/o Late R.G Nalr/aged about 18 years, res1dent ofBloWIC/B Sector-8Bhilal,& distdurg (CG):)ehsdDav1d S/o Devdanam aged aboutJ58 years res1dent of Qtr No 4DRoad No 13See—8 Bhilai NagarTahsll & Dist Durg (CG)
'
/
Respondent No 3,s:Non-Applicant N ,L~
«)9
HIGH COURT[OF][ CHHATTISGARH.][ BILASPUR]
i
DB:HON’NLE[Dr][ I.][ M.]QUDDUSI85HGN’BLE[G.][ MHVHAJ3DDHN,][ JJ]
M. A.No. 22612002
Manager, Th6[New][ India]Assm‘axiceCompanyLui.
APPELLANT:
i‘
Vs.
%
Smt. B. Raahamma[&][ others]
REspoNbENTs:
.u
(3F THE MOTOR[ VEHECLES]
Misc. APPEAL[UNDER][ SECTIQN][ 173]ACT, 1983
Amieaxance:
Mr. Pankaj[Agrawal,][ counsel][ for][ the][ appellant.]
None for the[respondants,][ though][ served.]
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
(16.12.2011;
Per LM. gunnusi,[.L]
1. This aypeal[has][ been][ med.][ by][ the][ Insurance][ Company][ againSt]IIthe impugned;[award][ datecl][ 17.09.1997]passed[by][ the][ learned]Add}.Motor Accident[Claims][ Txibunal][ Durg,]Distt. Durg[in][ so]In fact, twofar asit has fastened[liability][ upon][ the][ apyellant.]claim petitions[an’sing][ out][ of][ the][ same][ accident][ were][ decided][ by]commonaward,whichwereregisteredasClaimCaseNos.88j 1998[&][ 89/][ 1998.]Theinstaxit appeal[has][ been]filedagainst the[awald][ made][ in][ Claim][ Petition][ No.89]][ 1998.]
2. Brief facts[of][ the][ case as]per[the][ version][ of][ the][ claimants][ are]that G.Satish Kumar (deceased)[who][ was][ working][ as][ Railway]Guard in Qajipet (Andhra[Pradesh)][ came][ to][ Bhilai][ to][ meet][ his]motherandsister.RespondentNo.3namelyDavidwashisneighbor and[was]residing in Qr.No.4,Sector8,Bhilai Nagar’J[r/]
f
4.
5. On17.09.2007G.Satish Kumar alongwith his nephew Vsnu(deceased)wentonScooterbearingRegn.No.M.P.24H/2707belonged to respondent No.3to bu‘ng medicines for respondentno.3.Whiledriving thescooter,Satish Kumar lost his controlover the vehicle and dashed the divider of the road; as a result ofwhich,bothSau'shKumarandhisnephewVenusustainedlgrievous[head][ injuries][ and][ died][ during][ the][ course][ of][ treatment]in; Sector—9 Hospital,Bhilai.The deceased was aged in betweenx[.]28— 30 years and was earning Rs.7053/ — per month by workingasGuardinRailways.Theclaimantsi.e.,mother andsisterbeing dependents] legal representatives have filed claim petiu’onu/;s166of theMotor VehiclesAct,1988(for[short][ “the]Act,1988”) for the award of a total compensation of Rs.83,58,352/[-]on various heads.
ThelearnedClaimsTribunal hasheldthat whiledrivingthescooter byG.Satish Kumar,thevehicle becameuncontiolledand dashed the divider of the road, as a result of which driverSatish Kumar and Venu Narayan who was sitting on the Scooterbothdiedandtheclaimantsareentitledtogetatotalcompensation of Rs.6,00,000/[-]with interest @ 9% per annum.
We haveheardlearned counsel for theparties[and][ have]alsogone[through][ the][ records.]The Court below has awarded the compensation by making aninterpretation of provisions of sub-section(1)[of Section][ 165][ of]the Act stating that the words[“death]or bodily injury caused dueto accident arising out of use of motor-vehicles” have been usedbut no where it has been mentioned therein about[“the]rash andnegligence driving of thevehicle”.Therefore,the Tribunal held
thateveniftheaccidenthadoccurredonaccountofthenegligence[of][ driver](deceased)[in][ that][ case][ also,][ the][ Insurance]Corjnpany[is][ liable][ to]pay[compensation][ to][ the][ legal][ heirs][ 0%][ the]deceasedasthequestionof negligenceisirrelevantinthatres‘pect.Wedonotagree[with]theinteqaretationof Section16§(1)made bythelearnedMAC’I‘.Acompaxativestudyofsections163-A andsection165(1) would[show][ that][ in][ section]163§A.it has[been][ specifically][ mentioned][ in][ sub—section][ (2)][ that]thenegligenceof thevictim would[be]ignored but[in]section1 65(1),thishas‘not[been]mentioned.Therefore,inaclaimpetition[filed][ u/][ s][ 166][ of ]the[Act,][ the][ negligence][ of the][ driver][ is][ to]be proved and[if][ the][ driver][ died][ due][ to][ his][ own][ negligence,][ his]legal heirs would[not][ be][ enu'tled][ to]get[compensation.]
Further in Second[Schedule][ appended][ to]section163-A of theMotorVehiclesAct,themaximumannualincomehasbeenmentioned upto[Rs.40,000]][ —][ and][ therefore][ the][ decision][ of][ three-]BenchofHon’bletheSupremeCourtinDeepaljudgesGirishbhai Soni[and][ others][ Vs.][ United][ India][ Insurance][ Co.]Ltd., Baroda (2004)[5][ SCC][ 385][ is][ relevant][ here,][ wherein][ in]paragraph67disagreeingwiththeprepositionlaiddowninOriental Insurance[Co.Ltd.]Vs. Hansrajbhai[V.][ Kodala][ and]others, [2001)[5][ SCC][ 175],[it][ has][ been][ held][ as][ under:]
“67.We,therefore, are[of][ the][ opinion][ that]Kodala has correctly[been][ decided.]However, wedo not agree[with][ the][ findings][ in][ Kodala][ that][ if][ a]163-A,theperson[invokes][ provisions][ of][ Section]annual income[of][ Rs.40,000!—]per[annum]shall‘oetreatedasacap.Inouropinion,the163-A being[a]socialproceedings[under][ Section]security provision,providing[for][ distinct][ scheme,]
onlythoscWhoseannualincomeisuptoRs.40,000]-cantaksthebenéfltthsreof.A11otherclaimsarerequiredtobedeterminedinterms of Chapter XII of[the][ Act.”]
In[jview]of the above discussion,[we][ are][ of][ The][ oymion][ that][ the]Tribunal hasnot conducteda properenquiryasprovidedinSections 168 and 169[of][ the][ Motor][ vehicles][ Act][ and][ Rule][ 226][ of]CG. Motor Vehicle[the][ Rules]1994.It should have summonedthe ‘pelicerecords andshould haveseen whether a technicalinspection report of the[vehicle][ was][ obtained][ by][ the]police[and]Whether the accident had[taken]place[due][ to][ technical][ defect][ or]dueto negligence of the[driver][ and]after determination[of][ the]said.questionoffacts,thematterwithregardtoawardofcompensation should have[been][ decided.]This has not beendoneintheinstantcase.Therefore;thematterrequiresreconsideration at the[end][ of][ the Tribunal.]
Hence, weallowtheappealinpart,setasidetheimpugnedaward and remit the matter back[to][ the][ Tribunal][ for][ decision]afresh in the light of the[observations][ made][ above.][ The][ Tribunal]shall summon thepolicerecords andas an explorer of truthshall conduct enquiry.
Needless to mention that the parties[shall][ be][ allowed][ to][ amend]the pleadings, adduce further evidence,[file][ documents][ or]get[the]documents verified etc., and thereafter[the][ Tribunal][ shall][ make]the awardafresh at theearliest.Therecordsof the Tribunalshall besent back withoutfurtherdelay.Sinceitisanoldmatter.it is expected that the Tribunal[shall][ decide][ the][ matter]/as early as possible preferably within a period[of][ six][ months.]/