Dismissed

B.Shreeniwas and Another v. Pawni Bai

Chhattisgarh HC10 Apr 2014MAC/468/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this miscellaneous appeal, the High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected the appellant-owner and driver's challenge to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal compensation of Rs. 1,75,000 awarded for a fatal road accident, dismissing the contentions regarding contributory negligence and income assessment.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the appellants were directed to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal forthwith.

B.Shreeniwas and Another Vs Pawni Bai — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

INTHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M. A. (C) N0. C1^ OF 2007 (S.B.1 StRfia 'REsraph WSi'igSsy UUKuiiS

¶3

APPELLANTS B. Shreeniwas, aged about 22 ^X --IMON-APPLICANTS (20) years, Son of Shri B. Maleshyam;

¶4

--IMON-APPLICANTS

¶5

(DRIVER)

¶6

B. Maleshyam, aged about 42 (28) years, Son of Stiri Rajjaiya; (OWNER)

¶7

Both are residents of Village Palbhatti, Police Station Aundhi, Tahsil Manpur, District

¶8

Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

RESPONDENT Pawni Bai, aged about 45 (43) (PPLICANTNO.l years, Wife of Late Shri Jage Ram;

¶11

MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 Cl) OFTHE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE "ACT'")

¶12

^,--i •^> r t^-^ i ~^>;La-ss ^ "^=S£"S1

¶13

HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶14

SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker

¶15

¶16

M.A. (C) No. 468/2007

¶17

APPELLANTS/ NON-APPLICANTS

¶18

B. Shreeniwas & another

VERSUS

RESPONDENT

Pawni Bai

Shri P.K.C. Tiwari senior counsel assisted by Shri Shashi Bhushan counsel for the appellants. None appears for respondent though served.

ORDER

(10.04.2014)

jaa

This appeal arises out of the award dated 24.1.2007 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the "Tribunal") Rajnandgaon in Claim Case No. 66/2006 awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,75,000 in favour of respondent/claimant.

¶27

Facts of the case in brief are that on 30.3.2005 when deceased Jageram Lakra was going on foot, he was dashed by a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 08-E/6382, owned by appellant No.2 and driven by appellant No.1 in a rash and negligent manner on account ofwhich he died on the spot.

¶28

Claim case was filed by the claimants who are widow and major son of the deceased claiming compensation of Rs. 7,95,000 in favour of the claimants. However, by the impugned award the

¶29

'-^ e\

¶30

¶31

Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,75,000 in favour of widow of the deceased namely Pawni Bai. It is this award which is under challenge in this appeal.

¶32

Counsel for the appellants submits as under:

¶33

That the accident occurred on account of the negligence of (i) the deceased himself as all of a sudden he came on the road without seeing the motorcycle and therefore it should have been held by the Tribunal that the deceased was having contributory negligence for the accident.

¶34

(ii) That the Tribunal has erred in law in applying the principle of res /psa loquitor, placing reliance on the statement of Amar Sai (AW-2).

¶35

That monthly income of the deceased has wrongly been (iii) assessed as Rs. 3000.

¶36

Heard counsel for the appellants.

¶37

As regards income of the deceased, the Tribunal has assessed the same as Rs. 3000 per month which in the considered opinion of this Court does not appear to be unjustified. The other point to be considered is the contributory negligence of the deceased. There is no evidence on record to show that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the deceased. From the record of criminal case and other^{retateddocuments,itis} apparent that it is the driver of the^{offendingvehiclewhowas} responsible for the accident. Moreover, Amar Sai (AW-2) - the eye

¶38

-J

¶39

witness to the accident has categorically stated that vehicle in question was driven in a rash and negligent manner and as its driver lost control over the same, the accident took place resulting in the death of Jageram Lakra.

¶40

Considering the totality of the facts and the circumstances of the case, this Court finds no substance in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The appellants are directed to pay the entire compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal, forthwith.

¶41

Sd/pritinker Diwakar Judge

¶42

/y-y^

¶43

B.Shreeniwas and Another v. Pawni Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Shreeniwas and Another v. Pawni Bai

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

Milapram Sahu Vs Smt. Hem Lata Sahu

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Rupesh Kumar Mandari and Others

The Oriental Insurance Comp.Ltd. Vs Mahaveer Prasad and Others

Harakhram Vs Santosh and Ors.

Mohar Lal Vs Smt Shaira Bano and Others

Santosh Parakh Vs Rainbow Travels and Others