Dismissed

Mukhtiyaar Singh and Others v. Billu @ Sukhdev Singh Kanwar and Others

Chhattisgarh HC18 Jun 2012MAC/876/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court disposed of two miscellaneous appeals arising from the same Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Insurance Company sought dismissal based on alleged policy breach, while claimants sought enhanced compensation. The Court found no breach and upheld the low award.

What did the court decide?

Both miscellaneous appeals filed by the Insurance Company and the claimants were dismissed.

Mukhtiyaar Singh and Others Vs Billu @… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

C-). ^'

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU5

¶3

Single Bench :- Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. J

¶4

M.A.(C)No. 840 of 2007

¶5

	The Oriental Insurance Co.
	Ltd. through Division Manager, Geetanjali Complex, Purana Bus Stand, Korba, Tah. & District Korba (C.G.) (InsuranceCompany) Versys
Respondents	1. Mukhtiyar Singh, aged about 45 years, S/o Ranjat Singh Kanwar, R/o vittage Pidiya, Thana-Kartala, Tah. Kartala, Distt. Korba (C.G.)
	2. Smt. Shanti Bai w/o Mukhtiyar Singh, aged about 40 years, R/o village Pidiya, Thana- Kartala, Tah. Kartala, District Korba (C.G.)
	3. Billu @ Sukhdev Singh tonwar, aged about 27 years, S/o Shatir Singh Kanwar, address- Dadarkhurd, Tah. & Distt. Korba (C.G.) (Driver) 4. Sohan Singh, aged about 70 years. S/o Ditbodh Singh Kanwar, R/o Bandhapali, Tah. Kartala, Distt.-Korba(C.G.) (Owner) AND M.A.(ClNo.876of2007
Appellants	1 Mukhtiyaar Singh, aged 45 years, S/o Ranjat Singh Kanwar 2. Smt. Shanti Bal, aged 40 years,W/o MukhtiyaarSingh

¶6

'.L'r ;'"WI?sfe^.'''

¶7

(Both above resident of Gram pedia, Tehsil Kartala, District Korba (C.G.))

¶8

Versus

¶9

Resooridenf;

¶10

Billu @ Sukhdev Singh Kanwar, aged 27 years, S/o Shatir Singh Kanwar, R/o Dadarkhurd, Tehsil & District Korba (C.G.)

¶11

of offending vehicle

¶12

(Driver No.CG-12/F/0224 and Trolly NO.CG12/F/0225)

¶13

1. Sohan Singh, aged about 70 years, S/o Dilbodh Singh Kanwar, R/o Bandhapali, Tehsil Kartala, District Korba (C.G.)

¶14

(Owner of offending vehicle No.CG-12/F/0224 and Trolly NO.CG12/F/0225)

¶15

Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Offtese Geetanjali Complex, Old Bus Stand Korba (C.G.)

¶16

of (Insurance company offending vehicle No. CG-12/F/0224 and Trolly NO.CG12/F/0225)

¶17

MISCELLANEOUS APPEALS UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT

¶18

Appearance:

¶19

(In M.A.(C)No.840/2007l

¶20

Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for the appeltant. Shri Anurag Jha, counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri M.K. Bhaduri with Ms. Jyoti Rathore, counsel for respondent No.4.

•^9,

M.A.(CtNo.876/2007l

Shri Anurag Jha, counsel for the appellants.

¶25

Shri M.K. Bhaduri with Ms. Jyoti Rathore, counsel for respondent No.2.

¶26

Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3.

¶27

Order

¶28

(Passed on 18/06/2012)

¶29

1. Since M.A.(C)No.840/2007 filed by the Insurance company and M.A.(C)No.876/2007 filed by the claimants arise out of the same award dated 17.04.2007 passed in Claim Case No.278/2007 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the Tribunal'), Korba, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶30

¶31

¶32

As against the compensation of Rs.22,40,000/- claimed by the claimants by filing an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the death of their son Bhadrika Prasad in the motor accident on 10.06.2005, the tearned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.80,500/- as compensation to the ctaimants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of actual payment.

¶33

Brief facts of the case, as per version of claimants are that on 10.06.2005 claimants' son namely Bhadrika (deceased) who was a student of standard II was going to field for dropping compost along with five persons in the offending vehicle Tractor & Troily bearing registration No. CG-12/F-0224 and CG-12/F-0225 as per instruction of his father/claimant in M.A.(C)876/2007. The offending vehicle Tractor & Trolly bearing registration No. CG12/F-0224 and CG-12/F-0225 being driven by respondent No.3 Billu @ Sukhdev Singh in M.A.(C) No.840/2007 in a rash and negligent manner, turtled near the house of Gajar Kanwar village Pediya, as a result of which claimants' son Bhadrika Prasad was crushed under the offending vehicle Tractor & Trolly and died on the spot. After the incident, driver/respondent No.3 Billu@Sukhdev Singh in M.A.(C)No.840/2007 ran away from the spot.

¶34

jy^r e .. 'Yi
""•f'S'A'y!:^^''ff

Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence on record awarded Rs. 80,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the applicatioa, till the date of actual payment to the claimants by fastening the liabitity on the Insurance Company as welt as owner and driver of the offending vehicle Tractor & Trotly holding that the offending vehicle Tractor & Trolly met with an accident in which deceased Bhadrika Prasad died.

¶39

Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant in M.A.(C)No.840/2007 submits that the Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability on the appellanVinsurance company because this is a case of breach of policy condition which has not been considered by the Tribunal while passing the award.

¶40

Shri Anurag Jha, learned counsel for the appellants in M.A.(C)No.876/2007 submits that the leamed Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.80,500/-. Thus, the amount of compensation may kindly be enhanced suitably.

¶41

1. I have heard the leamed counsel for the parties, perusec' the impugned award and record of the Claims Tribunal.

¶42

¶43

A bare perusal of the record goes to show that Ganpat Lal (AW/2) in his evidence deposed that on 10.05.2006 at about 12.00-1.00 O'clock when he was going from his field he saw that offending vehicle Tractor was turtled. Tractor was being driven by driver Billu@Sukhdev Singh in which Mukhtiyar's son Bhadrika Prasad was crushed under the offending vehicle and died. He further deposed that he saw the incident from 10-20 meters away and report of the incident was lodged in police station by the villagers. He has deposed in his cross-examination that in the Tractor six persons^{satbesidethedriver.} He has also stated in his crossexamination that at the time of incident claimant Mukhtiyar Singh was not present. Mukhtiyar Singh (AW/1) has atso supported the evidence of Ganpat Lal (AW/2) and has stated that he went to the spot when he received the information about the incident and saw

¶44

^l^

¶45

/'•»> .^rf."r---'; «^•'iti-. 3^

¶46

that Tractor turtled and his son Bhadrika Prasad was crushed under the engine of Tractor and died. He has also stated that his nephew lodged the report of the incident in the police station.

¶47

¶48

10)

¶49

From perusal of aforesaid statements, it is clear that there was no evidence about deceased Bhadrika Prasad that he was sitting beside the driver of the Tractor. No explanation has been offered by any witness as to how deceased Bhadrika Prasad was crushed under the offending vehicle tractor and died. Even the driver of the vehicle and other five persons who were present at the time of incident, were not examined in this case. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that at the time of incident deceased Bhadrika Prasad was sitting beside the seat of driver. Thus, the breach of policy condition has not been seen in this particular case.

¶50

Girdhar Dubey (NAW/1), AG-III, Dtetrict Transport Office, has stated that respondent No.4/Sohan Singh is the owner of the offending vehicte Tractor and Trolty bearing registration No. CG12/F-0224 and CG-12/F-0225. He has al&o stated in his crossexamination that it is true if compost is being loaded in the Tractor and Trolly then it will be considered for agriculture purpose.

¶51

So far as the argument advanced by Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant in M.A.(C)No.840/2007 regardlng breach of policy is concerned, there is no any indication of breach of policy conditions in the statement of Girdhar Dubey (NAW/1) by the respondent No.S/driver Billu @ Sukhdev and respondent No.4/Sohan Singh, owner of the offending vehicle Tractor in M.A.(C)Np.840/2007. Thus, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant in M.A.(C)No.840/2007 cannot be accepted in the instant case.

¶52

1. So far as the argument advanced by Shri Anurag Jha, learned counsel for the appettants in M.A.(C)No.876/2007 regarding enhancement of compensation is concerned, from pemsal of the

¶53

,^~::,J:'ts^\ rfe^/g"""'''•i^ ^l? •V .^'-^'

¶54

¶55

record it appears that the deceased was 10 years old at the time of incident and Tribunal considering all the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly awarded the aforesaid compensation, which does not call for any interference by this Court. For the foregoing reasons, l do not find any illegal'rty or infirmity in the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, both the aforesaid appeals being devoid of ^lt deserve to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

R.N. Chandrakar Judge

¶58

Vijay

Mukhtiyaar Singh and Others v. Billu @ Sukhdev Singh Kanwar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukhtiyaar Singh and Others v. Billu @ Sukhdev Singh Kanwar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Jimat Bai and Ors. Vs Mohit Kumar Sahu and Ors.

Devki Bai Vs Manharan and Others

Sukhu Ram and Another Vs Man Singh and Others

Smt. Gouri Verma and Ors. Vs Fareed Khan and Ors.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mukhtiyar Singh and Others

Shambhu Rao Vs Mohd.Tahir Khan @ Raju and Others