ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. UTTARA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant - insurance Company against the award dated 26.08.2011 passed by the learned

(2.) ND Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bilaspur (CG) (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 137/2011. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.06.2009 at about 5.00 p.m. the respondent No.6 reversed the truck bearing registration number CG04-J- 1411 in a resh and negligent manner and dashed deceased Dwarika Prasad Kashyap, who was at that time working in the Motor Mechanic Garage, Bilaspur, as a result of which he suffered grievous injuries on his body. He was admitted in the CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur where he died while undergoing treatment. The claimants, being the dependents / legal representatives, have filed claim petition under Section 166 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short) the Act 1988') seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.12,86,00/- under various heads.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant/insurer has contested that the place where the accident had occurred i.e. motor workshop, is not a public place. He has further contended that to attract the provisions of section 166 of the Act, 1988 it is necessary to prove rash and negligence on the part of the driver, but in the instant case the claimants utterly failed to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle and therefore, the claim application itself was not maintable. Thus, the appellant insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation to the claimants. So far as the quantum part of the impugned award is conerned, it has been argued by the learned counsel that nothing has come on record to show that the parents were dependents upon the deceased rather it is admitted fact that they are earning form the agricultural land owned by them, but the Claims Tribunal treating the parents as dependent on the deceased, has deduced only l/4th from the income of the deceased towards his personal and lying expenses. Therefore, the compensation assessed by the Claims Tribunal is not proper.