Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 370 (MP)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mangi Bai

2012-04-02

S.K.SETH

body2012
ORDER 1. This appeal is by the Insurance Company against the award dated 18.10.2006 passed by M.A.C.T, Mandsaur in Claim Case No.111/2006. By the impugned award, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.1,96,000/- together with interest to the claimants for the death of Bagdiram in a motor accident. 2. It is not in dispute that Bagdiram was travelling as a pillion rider on a motor cycle driven by Dilip on 20.02.2006 and they were going from Deekan to Marvan. The case of the claimants was that a tractor came from opposite side and dashed against the stationary motor cycle which Dilip had stopped seeing the oncoming tractor. Because of the accident, Bagdiram sustained serious injuries, therefore, he was taken to district hospital, Neemuch for treatment where he died. Claimants are the widow and children of Bagdiram. They preferred a claim petition claiming compensation against the driver, owner and Insurance Company of the tractor. On due consideration, learned Claims Tribunal found that on the fateful day the tractor belonged to Jagdishchandra and was insured with appellant/Insurance Company. It was also found that Ashok was driving the tractor and on account of his rash and negligent driving, the accident occurred. Tribunal also found that age of the deceased was 35 years and he was working as mason. Adopting a conservative attitude, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of Bagdiram at Rs.1500/- and after deducting the conventional 1/3 amount assessed the future loss of dependency at Rs.12,000/- per annum and applied the multiplier of 16 to arrive at a figure of Rs.1,92,000/-. To this Tribunal added only Rs.4,000/- and thus awarded a total sum of Rs.1,96,000/-. 3. The only question for our consideration in this appeal is whether the tractor bearing registration No.MP-14-K-4248 or some other tractor was involved in the accident. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently argued that a tractor bearing registration No.MP-14-K-4248 was involved in the accident which is not insured with the appellant/Insurance Company and as such the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. In support of this contention, he invited attention to the FIR lodged by Dilip wherein the registration of the offending tractor is given as MP-14-K-4248. He has also referred to 161 statement of Dilip recorded by the investigating officer. In support of this contention, he invited attention to the FIR lodged by Dilip wherein the registration of the offending tractor is given as MP-14-K-4248. He has also referred to 161 statement of Dilip recorded by the investigating officer. Dilip in his deposition before the Claims Tribunal stated on oath that the registration number of the offending vehicle was M.P-44-M-2347. He categorically denied the suggestion put to him that the accident was caused by the tractor bearing registration No.MP-14-K-4248. In addition to this, claimant had examined another eye witness Pappu who also stated on oath that he saw the offending tractor coming from the opposite direction before it collided with the motor cycle with a bang. Immediately after the accident, the tractor driver was apprehended at the spot who disclosed his name as Ashok. This witness further stated that the registration number of the offending tractor was M.P-44-M-2347. The owner and driver of the offending tractor did not enter the witness box. The Insurance Company has also not adduced any evidence except to place reliance on the F.I.R. Neither the FIR nor 161 statement are substantive piece of evidence. The FIR is only a report/intimation to set the Police machinery into motion. The substantive evidence is the evidence given on oath in the Court. As has been stated herein above, two witnesses examined by the claimants have stated on oath that the registration number of the offending vehicle was MP-44-M-2347. There is no dispute that the said tractor was insured with the appellant on the relevant date and it belonged to Jagdish. 4. In view of the evidence that has come on record, we do not find any perversity in the finding of the Claims Tribunal. There is no merit and substance in the appeal. The appeal stands dismissed.