High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 01 CHH CK 0088

Ritesh Tiwari vs Dukalhin Bai And Ors

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 8 January 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
P. Sam Koshy, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 21 Of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 327 words

P. Sam Koshy, J

1.

Present is an appeal filed by the owner under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the award dated 22/11/2017 passed by the learned

Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Kabirdham (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.73/2016.

2.

Vide the said impugned award, the Tribunal in a death case has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,38,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the

date of application.

3.

The counsel for the appellant submits that, the finding of the Tribunal is erroneous on the ground that, the present matter stands squarely covered by

the recent larger Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [AIR

2017 SC 3668]. He further submits that, the driver of the vehicle had a valid license in as much as he had a license of Light Motor Vehicle and

therefore the liability if any, should had been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

4.

Perusal of record, particularly, the finding of the Tribunal would reveal that, the vehicle involved in the instant case is a JCB Crane which has its

laden weight of 11,200 Kilograms and that the license which the driver of the crane having was only of a Light Motor Vehicle where the laden weight

would be only up to 7,500 Kilograms.

5.

Apparently, there is a difference in the category of the vehicle which the driver was operating at the time of the accident.

6.

Given the factual matrix of the case, particularly, considering the vehicle involved in the case, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of the

Tribunal cannot be said to be either perverse or contrary to the evidence which have come on record.

7.

Accordingly, this Court does not find any strong case made out by the counsel for the appellant calling for an interference with the impugned

award.

8.

The appeal thus fails and is accordingly rejected.