Chattisgarh High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Smt. Laxmin Bai Tamboli on 13 October, 2022
1
FAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MAC No. 156 of 2022
1. United India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch
Office, Gurukripa Tower, Second Floor, Vayapar Vihar, Bilaspur, District
Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)............(Insurer Of Tractor Bearing Registration No.
C.G.10 D.A. 2257 And Trolley No. C.G.10 W 0509), ---- Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Laxmin Bai Tamboli W/o Late Shivkumar Tamboli, Aged About 47
Years R/o Village And Post Ranigaon, Thana Ratanpur, District Bilaspur
(Chhattisgarh) Present R/o Near Dak Bangla, Kota, Thana Kota, District
Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh).............(Claimant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2. Durgesh Kumar Tamboli, S/o Late Shivkumar Tamboli, Aged About 30 Years
R/o Village And Post Ranigaon, Thana Ratanpur, District Bilaspur
(Chhattisgarh) Present R/o Near Dak Bangla, Kota, Thana Kota, District
Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh).............(Claimant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3. Suresh Kumar S/o Late Shivkumar Tamboli, Aged About 29 Years R/o
Village And Post Ranigaon, Thana Ratanpur, District Bilaspur
(Chhattisgarh) Present R/o Near Dak Bangla, Kota, Thana Kota, District
Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh).............(Claimant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
4. Ajay Kumar Tamboli, S/o Late Shivkumar Tamboli, Aged About 24 Years R/o
Village And Post Ranigaon, Thana Ratanpur, District Bilaspur
(Chhattisgarh) Present R/o Near Dak Bangla, Kota, Thana Kota, District
Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh).............(Claimant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
5. Sanjay Kumar Sahu, S/o Dhanaram Sahu, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village
Gonddiya, Thana Ratanpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh..........(Non-
Applicant No. 1 Driver Of Tractor Bearing Registration No. C.G.10 D.A.
2257 And Trolley No. C.G.10 W 0509), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
6. Janakram Sahu, S/o Late Latelram Sahu, Aged About 65 Years R/o Village
Gonddiya, Thana Ratanpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh...........(Non-
Applicant No. 2 Owner Of Tractor Bearing Registration No. C.G.10 D.A.
2257 And Trolley No. C.G.10 W 0509), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
For Appellant : Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order On Board
13.10.2022
1. Instant is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988.
2. Challenge is to award dated 09.11.2021 passed by the 8th Additional
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bilaspur in claim case No. 522/2019.
3. Vide the impugned award, the Tribunal has, in a death case, awarded
compensation of Rs. 10,76,446/- with interest @ 9% from the date of
application. The liability of payment of compensation has been
fastened upon the Insurance Company. Primary challenge to the
award is that the tractor at the time of accident was being used for
commercial purpose, whereas the tractor was insured for agriculture
purpose. Likewise, it was also the contention of the Appellant that
from the plain reading of the claim application and the evidence of the
claimants, it appears that there is an element of contributory
negligence on the part of two vehicles involved in the accident and
this fact has not properly been appreciated by the Tribunal while
quantifying compensation.
4. Further contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance
Company is that while quantifying the compensation, the Tribunal has
erroneously accepted two major sons as dependent to the deceased
and has awarded compensation. According to the counsel for
Appellant, if the major sons would not have been considered as
dependent, the deduction towards personal expenses at 1/3 as
assessed by the Tribunal, would have become 50%.
5. Perusal of the records would clearly reflect that in support of the
contention that the Appellant is raising in the instance appeal, there
has been no evidence whatsoever led by them before the Tribunal
during the course of the proceedings. Paragraph 7 of the impugned
Judgment clearly mentions that the Insurance Company has failed to
lead any evidence in support of their contention.
6. As regards the tractor being used for commercial purpose other than
agriculture purpose, in the absence any evidence by the Insurance
Company and also a fact that there is no material/evidence that sand
loaded in the tractor was sold/purchased by any person, the
contention of the Insurance Company would be difficult to be
accepted. Sand is also required for agriculture activities for various
purposes, even incidental constructions required to be raised for
agriculture purposes. Therefore, the sand which was loaded in the
tractor was for agriculture use, cannot be ruled out without there
being any cogent substantial evidence on the part of the Insurance
Company to disprove the same.
7. As regards the contributory negligence is concerned, it is again the
view of this Court that in the absence any concrete evidence led by
the Insurance Company in support of their contention establishing the
fact that there was negligence on the part of the driver of both the
vehicles involved in the accident, the contributory negligence cannot
be attributed upon the claimants.
8. As regards the claimants being major sons, this again is a question of
fact which ought to have been proved by the Insurance Company by
leading evidence to the effect that the two major sons had separate
source of income available for them to survive and sustain without the
income of the deceased. The claimants in spite of being major sons,
if they were still unemployed, but naturally would have been
dependent upon the deceased or to their parents as the case could
be. Therefore, in the absence of any specific evidence in this regard,
the said ground raised by the Appellant also is not sustainable.
9. As regards interest part is concerned, this Court does not find any
illegality/perversity on the part of the Tribunal in awarding interest @
9%.
10.Thus, the appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be and is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
Jyoti
