Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Sprint Exports Pvt Limited

1 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 277 of 2013 Judgment Reserved on 29/08/2018 Judgment Delivered on 15/11 /2018 Smt. Samta Devi Parakh W/o Yogendra Parakh Aged About 37 Years R/o Shikshak Nagar, Distt. Durg C.G. Present Address - Surana Building, Ganjpara, Durg, Tah. And P.S. Durg, Distt. Durg C.G. ---- Appellant/Owner Versus 1. Sukhdas Satnami S/o Barsan Aged About 24 Years R/o Nayapara, Panchsheel Nagar, P.S. Durg, Distt. Durg C.G. 2. Narayan Prasad Sahu S/o Late Shobharam Aged About 45 Years 3. Smt. Bindu Bai D/o Fudku Ram Aged About 40 Years W/o Narayan Prasad Sahu, Both respondent Nos.2 & 3 are R/o Ward No. 18, Gagriti Chowk Nagar Nigam Camp-1, Bhilai, P.S. Chawani, Distt. Durg C.G. 4. New India Insurance Company Limited, Regd. And Main Office Mumbai, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Parakh Bhawan, Station Road, Distt. Durg C.G. ---- Respondents For Appellant Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For respondent Nos. 2 & 3 Shri C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.4 Shri Raj Awasthi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya C A V Judgment 1. This is owner’s appeal against the award dated 30.11.2012 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg, District Durg, C.G. (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in claim case No. 01/2009.

2 2. As against the compensation of Rs.9,93,479/- claimed by the unfortunate parents of the deceased Nilkanth Sahu, aged about 20 years, by filing application under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) for his death in the motor accident dated 24.11.2008, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.5,50,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 3. Facts of the case leading to the filing of claim petition are that on the fateful day i.e. 24.11.2008 the deceased Nilkanth was travelling in his motorcycle bearing registration No.CG07-LG- 3510 along with one pillion rider from Bhilai to Jawahar Nagar, on the way the respondent No.1/Driver by driving the offending vehicle Matador bearing registration No.CG07-C-1044 rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, as a result thereof, the deceased Nilkanth  died on account of injuries sustained by him in the said accident. Claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 A of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming the total compensation of Rs.9,93,479/- under various heads. 4. Learned Tribunal considering the evidence available on record by the impugned award granted a total compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of application till its realization, fastening the liability upon the owner/appellant on the ground of breach of policy conditions as the offending vehicle was being used without permit. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has

3 erred in fastening the liability on the appellant/owner, whereas the offending was less than 3,000 Kg and as such it was exempted from necessity for permits under Section 66(3)(i) of the Motor Vehicle Act. The Tribunal has also not considered the evidence of the appellant/owner, wherein she has stated categorically that the offending vehicle was sent for repairing work and as such it was exempted from the necessity for permits under Section 66(3)(p) of the Motor Vehicle Act. Lastly, he submits that the Tribunal has committed an illegality in awarding compensation on the higher side by taking the annual income of the deceased as Rs.60,000/-. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have supported the impugned award. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned award. 8. Learned Tribunal while considering the issue of breach of policy conditions in Para 14 has observed that the vehicle in question was insured as transport vehicle and as per RC Book produced by the appellant/owner, the unladen weight of the vehicle is 2,440 Kg and the gross vehicle weight was 8,000 Kg, whereas under Section 66(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, any goods vehicle, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 3,000 Kg, is exempted from necessity for permits. As such it was obligatory for the appellant/owner to obtain permit from the concerned RTO for plying the vehicle. This apart the appellant/owner has failed to produce any permit before the Tribunal.

4 9. As per the evidence of NAW-2 Ram Kumar Sonkar AG-3, RTO, Durg, has categorically stated that as per their record the offending vehicle does not have any permit. Further, as per seizure memo Ex.P-5 also it is apparent that no permit of the offending vehicle was seized by the police. Though, appellant/owner has stated in her cross-examination that all the documents of the offending vehicle are in possession of her husband and he can explain about the permit of the vehicle, however, husband of the appellant/owner has not been examined. 10. Thus, the Tribunal considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced by the appellant/owner and the Insurance Company has recorded a finding that on the date of accident, the vehicle in question was being driven without any permit and as such the same was being driven in violation of the policy conditions as the gross weight of the vehicle was 8,000 Kg and, therefore, the same required a permit as per provision of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicle Act:- “ 66. Necessity for permits-(1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used:

5 xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx (2) xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx

(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply- (a) xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx (b) xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx (i) to any goods vehicle, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 3,000 Kilograms;” there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award, so far as it relates to fastening the liability upon the appellant/owner and exonerating the Insurance Company on the ground of breach of policy conditions. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. The Tribunal considering the income tax returns filed by the deceased and the evidence of AW-1 Narayan Prasad Sahu and evidence of AW-2 Navneet Mishra came to the conclusion that the deceased was earning Rs.60,000 per annum. Considering the age of the deceased as 20 years on the basis of Higher School Certificate, the Tribunal has assessed the total loss of dependency at Rs.5,40,000/- and further awarded Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses and loss of estate. The aforesaid amount granted by the learned Tribunal as compensation, in the given facts and

6 circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced by the parties, cannot be said to be exorbitant or excessive, rather the same appears to be just and proper. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has committed no illegality or infirmity in passing the award impugned. 13. Accordingly, the appeal being without any substance is liable to dismissed and is accordingly dismissed as such. Sd/- Gautam Choudiya

Judge Akhilesh