Dismissed

Punuram v. Sitabai and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC12 Feb 2018MAC/58/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two motor accident appeal proceedings, the High Court rejected appeals filed by the vehicle owner challenging the MACT's awards. The Court upheld the Tribunal's findings that deceased individuals were passengers traveling for non-agricultural purposes, thereby sustaining the liability on the owner and exonerating the insurance company.

What did the court decide?

The appeals against the awards dated 19/10/2011 in MAC Nos. 86/2011 and 83/2011 were rejected; interim relief was vacated.

Punuram Vs Sitabai and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 57 of 2012

¶5

Punuram S/o Suritram Sahu, aged about 55 years, R/o Bahbaliya, Thana Kunda, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.).

¶6

---Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Revti Bai Wd/o Rambharos Sahu, aged about 24 years.

¶9

Ku.Rani D/o Rambharos Sahu, aged about 6 months.

¶10

Ramprasad S/o Samelal Sahu, aged about 62 years.

¶11

Durpatbai W/o Ramprasad Sahu, aged about 55 years. Respondents No.2 being minor, through her mother Revti Bai Wd/o Rambharos Sahu.

¶12

All are R/o village Bahbaliya, Thana Kunda, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.).

¶13

Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Shivmohan Bhawan, Vidhansabha Road, Pandri, Raipur.

¶14

Santaram @ Sanat Kumar S/o Burva Sahu, aged about 25 years, R/o Torla Nawapara, Thana Kunda, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.).

¶15

---Respondents

¶16

MAC No. 58 of 2012

¶17

Punuram S/o Suritram Sahu, aged about 55 years, R/o Bahbaliya, Thana Kunda, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.).

¶18

---Appellant

¶19

Versus

¶20

Sitabai Wd/o Malikram Sahu, aged about 20 years.

¶21

Ku. Bhumika D/o Malikram Sahu, aged about 9 months.

¶22

Pardeshi S/o Shyamlal, aged about 52 years.

¶23

Bedinbai W/o Pardeshi Sahu, aged about 49 years. Respondents No.2 being minor, through her mother Sitabai Wd/o Malikram Sahu.

¶24

All are R/o village Bahbaliya, Thana Kunda, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.).

¶25

Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Shivmohan Bhawan, Vidhansabha Road, Pandri, Raipur.

¶26

¶27

Santaram @ Sanat Kumar S/o Burva Sahu, aged about 25 years, R/o Torla Nawapara, Thana Kunda, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.).

¶28

---Respondents

¶29

For appellant/owner : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Insurance Company : Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate.

¶30

Hon ' ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

¶31

Order on Board

¶32

12/02/2018

¶33

These are the two appeals filed by the owner under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act assailing the award dated 19/10/2011, passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case Nos. 86/2011 and 83/2011.

¶34

Vide the two impugned awards, the Tribunal in two death cases under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act has awarded a compensation of Rs.4,17,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum each in both the claim cases.

¶35

While passing the said two impugned awards, the Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company of its liability and have fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant/owner.

¶36

The contention of the counsel for the appellant/owner is that, the finding of the Tribunal in exonerating the Insurance Company is erroneous and is contrary to the evidence which have come on record. He further submits that, the Tribunal has not properly appreciate the evidence which was brought on record by the appellant whereby it was stated that, the accident

¶37

occurred when the two deceased persons namely Rambharos and Malikram Sahu were standing on the road when they were hit by the Tractor and

¶38

¶39

Trolley belonging to the appellant bearing registration Nos. CG-09-C-62046205.

¶40

These contentions of the counsel for the appellant would not be sustainable for the reason that, the claimants while substituting their claim had examined one Ghanshyam-AW/2 who has in a very categorical terms deposed before the Tribunal that, he was travelling along with the two deceased persons on the Tractor of the appellant when the accident occurred. According to the said Ghanshyam-AW/2, they had boarded the Tractor at village Bahbaliya and were going to Pandariya which establishes the fact that, the deceased persons as well as AW-2 were travelling on the Tractor as a gratuitous passenger which further establishes the fact that the vehicle at the relevant point of time was not being used for an agricultural purpose for which it was registered.

¶41

Given the aforesaid findings of the learned Court below, this Court does not find any strong case made out by the counsel for the appellant calling for an interference with the two impugned awards.

¶42

Both the appeals thus being devoid of merits deserve to be and are accordingly rejected.

¶43

As a consequence of the rejection of the appeals, the interim relief earlier granted also stands vacated and merged with the present order.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

(P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE

¶46

Sumit

Punuram v. Sitabai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punuram v. Sitabai and Ors.

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

Laxmichand Kurre Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Gokul Prasad Thawait Vs Cg. Rajya Krishi Vipnan Board and Ors.

Ishwar Das Kujur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Smt.lalmati Jaiswal And Ors. Vs Smt.jamuna Devi Shukal And Anr.

Smt. Shanti Agrawal Vs Sushila Sahu and Anr.

Punuram Vs Revti Bai and Ors.