Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 140 (CHH)

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Madhuri Kaushik

2014-03-26

PRITINKER DIWAKER

body2014
ORDER : PRITINKER DIWAKER, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 29-6-2012 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"), Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 77/2011 awarding compensation of Rs. 15,89,712/- in favour of the claimants. Facts of the case in brief are that deceased Anil Kumar Kaushik was employed in SECL as dumper operator. On 18-4-2009, when two dumpers (having numbers 120 and 102) were operating in the mines, all of a sudden operator of dumper No. 120, which was at the front, applied the brake, the dumber No. 102, which was just behind, collided with it resulting in the death of Anil Kumar Kaushik. 2. Claim case was filed by the claimants claiming compensation of Rs. 79,27,566/- inter alia pleading that at the time of accident, the deceased aged about 40 years was in the employment of SECL as dumper operator and he died due to rash and negligent operation of the offending dumper and, therefore, suitable compensation may be awarded to them. 3. Tribunal, after considering the averments made by both the parties, awarded a compensation of Rs. 15,89,712/- in favour of the claimants with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and it is this award, which has been challenged by the SECL. 4. Counsel for the appellants made the following submissions:-- (i) That as per the definition of motor vehicle as contained in Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, dumper is not a motor vehicle and as such no claim could have been entertained by the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. (ii) That the Tribunal ought to have framed the issue whether the offending dumper or the dumper operated by respondent No. 4 herein was the motor vehicle? (iii) That as per the official record, age of the deceased was 42 years whereas the Tribunal has recorded his age as 40 years and thus multiplier applied by it is not correct. (iv) That wife of the deceased was given compassionate appointment and, therefore, while calculating the dependency, this point should have been considered by the Tribunal. 5. (iii) That as per the official record, age of the deceased was 42 years whereas the Tribunal has recorded his age as 40 years and thus multiplier applied by it is not correct. (iv) That wife of the deceased was given compassionate appointment and, therefore, while calculating the dependency, this point should have been considered by the Tribunal. 5. On the other hand, supporting the impugned award it has been argued by the Counsel for the respondents as under:-- (i) That the point of dumper being a motor vehicle or not has already been decided by this Court in the matter of S.E.C.L. and Others Vs. Smt. Bharti Devi and Others, (2011) 3 CGLJ 204 . (ii) That as per the evidence adduced by the parties including the medical report, deceased was aged about 40 years and thus, the Tribunal has rightly held his age as 40 years. (iii) That even if the compassionate appointment has been given to the wife of the deceased, it cannot come in the way of computation of compensation. 6. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 7. The point whether the dumper is a motor vehicle or not, is no longer res Integra. Relying on decisions of the Apex Court in the matters of Bolani Ores Ltd., (1974) 2 SCC 777 , M/s. Central Coal Fields Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Orissa and others, (1992) 3 SCC 133 Supp, Union of India and others, Vs. Chowgule and Co. Pvt. Ltd., etc. etc., (1992) 3 SCC 141 Supp and decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sahiba Khatun and Others, (2000) ACJ 168, the Division Bench of this Court has categorically held in the matter of SECL Bishrampur and others (supra), that the dumper is very much a motor vehicle. 8. Thus, considering the Division Bench decision of this Court referred to above, which has been rendered after taking into consideration various Apex Court decisions, this Court is of the considered opinion that dumper is a motor vehicle and thus the submission to the contrary made by Counsel for the appellants has no substance. 9. 8. Thus, considering the Division Bench decision of this Court referred to above, which has been rendered after taking into consideration various Apex Court decisions, this Court is of the considered opinion that dumper is a motor vehicle and thus the submission to the contrary made by Counsel for the appellants has no substance. 9. It is surprising that in the case referred to above, it is the SECL, which was appellant but yet the same question has again been raised by it in this case though already decided by the Division Bench of this Court. 10. So far as age of the deceased is concerned, on the basis of record of criminal case and the post-mortem report, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that deceased was 40 years of age at the relevant time. The appellants have not adduced any evidence in rebuttal that the deceased was 42 years of age. In case, the appellants were of the view that the deceased was 42 years of age at the time of accident, they were under obligation to adduce evidence to this effect and since they have failed to do so, the Tribunal cannot be said to be at fault in recording the age of the deceased as 40 years. 11. Now, the last point to be considered by this Court is that respondent No. 1-wife of the deceased was given compassionate appointment, and therefore, benefit given to her should also have been considered by the Tribunal while calculating the amount of compensation. In the matters of Vimal Kanwar and Others Vs. Kishore Dan and Others, (2013) 7 SCC 476 : (2013) 7 SCC(L&S) 759; Mrs. Helen C. Rebello and Others Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. and Another, (1999) 1 SCC 90 and Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. Smt. Kanta Aggarwal and Others, (2008) 11 SCC 366 , it has been held by the Apex Court that the amount received by the widow after getting compassionate appointment is not liable to be deducted from the income of the deceased for the purpose of computing compensation. 12. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, the appeal filed by the SECL appears to be without substance and is liable for dismissal. It is dismissed accordingly. Appellants are directed to deposit the entire amount within a period of two months from today.