ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RAMKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are arising out of common award dtd. 14/4/2014 passed by Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mungeli in claim case no. 232/2011 allowing the claim application filed by the claimant in part, hence both these appeals are being disposed of here by this common order.

(2.) Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 10/3/2011 at about 12:00 noon when on the instruction of Respondent 3/ Non-applicant 1, Punit Shrivas while working as helper on a tanker bearing registration no. CG 10 ZB 1716, mounted the tanker to check the water level in tanker, came into contact with high voltage electricity wire line lying over the tanker. On account of it, he suffered electric shock and fell down from tanker onto road, suffered grievous injuries over his person and became unconscious. He was taken to Community Health Centre Lormi where after giving primary treatment, injured Punit was referred to Mekahara Hospital, Raipur. During the course of treatment at Mekahara Hospital burn unit, injured Punit died on 13/3/2011. The accident was reported to concerned police station based upon which crime for offences under Ss. 279, 304A of IPC was registered against Respondent 3/ Nonapplicant 1 driver of the offending vehicle. Claimants who are parents of the deceased Punit filed claim application under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.13,80,000.00 on the ground that on the date of accident Punit was aged about 16 years and earning Rs.125.00 per day and Rs.40.00 per day as daily allowance from the work of helper on the tanker.

(3.) Non-applicant 1 and 2/ Respondent 3 and 4 submitted reply to the claim application pleading therein that the accident took place on account of negligence of the deceased himself, false and fabricated case was registered against Non-applicant 1, amount of compensation claimed is highly exaggerated, the accident did not take place from the vehicle, there was no liability upon the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. Vehicle was insured with Non-applicant 3, the liability, if any, would be upon the Insurance company.