1 Mac App. No. 21/2023 S. No. 55 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Mac App. No. 21/2023 Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited through its legal Manager …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Tariq Ahmed Malik, Advocate Vs. Altaf Ahmed Chopan and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Irfan Hafeez Lone & Mr. Hasnain Khawja, Advocates CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE O R D E R 05.06.2025 1. Impugned in this appeal is Award dated 08.04.2023 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baramulla, (for short “Tribunal”) on a claim petition bearing File No.06/Claim titled “Altaf Ahmad Chopan vs. Gorak Nath and Ors.”, directing the appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation in the amount of Rs. 68,12,000/- (inclusive of Interim award, if any, passed) along with 6% interest per annum from the date of institution of claim till realization, on the grounds made mention of therein. 2. A claim petition, as is discernable from perusal of the file, was filed by claimant/respondent No.1 before the Tribunal on 07.10.2016 averring therein that petitioner/respondent No.1 herein, Altaf Ahmed Chopan, aged 25 years, and his companion drivers were in the area of Rajasthan along with their vehicles/trucks bearing registration Nos. JK01AP-7248, JK05D-2496 and JK02AP-7313 filled with load and while reaching at Khokher Village near Temple in Sarahad Gangva, they parked their vehicles on the proper side of the road in order to 2 Mac App. No. 21/2023 repair and rectify the central bearing of Truck No. JK05D-2496. The petitioner/respondent No.1 herein and one Shakir were engaged with the repairing job and the truck bearing No.JK01AP-7248 was at the front followed by Truck Nos. JK05D-2496 and JK021AP-7313, Rouf Mohammad was standing nearby. In the meantime, the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.RJ06GC-0426 owned by respondentNo.1 in the claim petition driven by respondent No.2 therein and insured by respondent No.3 therein came from the Khokher side and was being driven negligently, rashly and at a high speed hitting the Truck No. JK02AP-7313 from rear side, resulting in dislocating of other trucks parked in line in front of the said Truck No.JK02AP-7313 as a result of the backward force thereby critically injuring the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein, Shakir and Rouf Mohamad. Both the legs of the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein got critically injured when one leg of Shakir got injured and Rouf Mohammad received injuries in his chest. Rouf Mohammad lodged first information report with the concerned Police Station, i.e., Police Station Parvatsar which led to the registration of case FIR No.162/2015 in the said Police Station under Sections 279, 337 IPC. During the course of investigation, the site plan was prepared by the Investigating Officer; the damaged tuck bearing No.JK02AP-7313 was inspected by the Investigating Officer and necessary memo was prepared. The offending vehicle bearing registrationNo.RJ07GC-0426 came to be seized and necessary Fard prepared. The statements of the witnesses came to be recorded and the Investigating Officer concluded the investigation of the case in the form of a charge report/challan in terms of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C, under Sections 3 Mac App. No. 21/2023 279, 337, 338 IPC and 134/187 M. V. Act. It is also stated in claim petition that petitioner/respondent No.1 herein underwent series of surgeries and both of his legs got amputated. The petitioner/respondent No.1 received 100% permanent disablement as per the medical records/certificates. The petitioner/respondent No.1 was young boy of 25 years of age at the time of accident and was only earning member of his family. It is also claimed in claim petition that petitioner/respondent No.1 was dealing with fruit business, purchasing the “C” grade apples, transporting the same to outside the UT and was also bringing load from outside to the Jammu and Kashmir thereby earning handsome income. The incident resulting into the permanent 100% disablement of the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein. According to claimant, he was maintaining his wife, son, daughter, sister and parents who on account of his disability were left beggared and destituted. The petitioner/respondent No.1 as well as his family is under a deep shock and trauma as a result of his disability. Petitioner/respondent No.1 before accident was earning not less than an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh per month and was the only source of sustenance of his family. Petitioner/respondent No.1 in his claim petition before the Tribunal sought grant of compensation of Rs.2.00 Crores along with interest. 3. Appellant-Insurance Company resisted the claim petition through written statement on the ground that the incident leading to the permanent disablement of the petitioner is the result of contributory negligence of the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein and his companion drivers; that the petition suffers from misjoinder of parties on account of the non-impleadment of the owners/drivers of vehicles 4 Mac App. No. 21/2023 of the petitioner and his companion drivers; that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No.2 in violation of the policy conditions as the same was being plied at the time of occurrence without a valid and effective driving license, valid fitness and route permit and in violation of traffic norms; that the petition is not maintainable on facts and law; that respondent No.3 has not received the insurance policy from the insured; that the insured, i.e. respondent No.1 as well as the concerned police station committed breach of provisions of Sections 134(c) and 158(6) of the M.V. Act by not furnishing vehicle documents to it. 4. The Tribunal, in view of pleadings of parties, framed the issues for determination, which are: (i) Whether on 11.10.2015, the offending vehicle bearing registration No.RJ07GC-0426 being driven by respondent No.2 rashly and negligently, dashed truck No.JK02AP-7313 and the petitioner sustained critical injuries which rendered him disabled? OPP (ii) Whether there was contributory negligence of the drivers of the vehicles bearing registration Nos.JK0AP-7248, JK02AP-7313 and RJ07GC-0426 which resulted in the accident and as such the company cannot be saddled with full liability? OPRs 3&4. (iii) Whether the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No.RJ07GC-0426 was not holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of occurrence? OPRs 3&4. (iv) Whether the offending vehicle bearing registration No.RJ07GC-0426 was not insured with respondent No.4 at the material time? OPR-4 (v) In case issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP. (vi) Relief? OP Parties. 5. Claimants/respondents produced and examined five witnesses before the Tribunal; besides the respondent no.1. Appellant-Insurance Company did not adduce any witness in support of its stand. In terms of impugned Award, the Tribunal found claimants/respondents 5 Mac App. No. 21/2023 entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 68,12,000/- along with interest per annum. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and peruse the material on record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has restricted his argument to the extent of monthly income of respondent No.1 and submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly taken the income of respondent No.1 as Rs.20,000/- without there being any proof regarding it. It is submitted by him that respondent No.1’s income at the most could have been taken as that of a skilled labour in the year 2015 as Rs.225/- per day and according to him loss of income was to be on the basis of it. 8. Whether the Tribunal has rightly taken the monthly income of Rs.20,000/- or not and whether the Tribunal ought to have taken monthly income of Rs.225 per day is to be looked into and seen. 9. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the accident in question had taken place in Rajasthan while the petitioner was taking load in his vehicle of which he was owner; he, therefore, cannot be taken as skilled labour or otherwise. 10. The Tribunal, after examining the evidence produced before it, has taken monthly income of respondent No.1 as Rs.20,000/-, therefore, there is no case that the income of respondent No.1 could be less than Rs.20,000/- per month. It is not the case of appellant that the respondent No.1 was a labourer. Admittedly, the vehicle was being owned by respondent No.1 which was used for carrying load to and fro, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken the monthly income of respondent No.1 as Rs.20,000/-. The Tribunal recorded the finding on 6 Mac App. No. 21/2023 the basis of evidence produced before it, as such, no fault can be found in the award of Tribunal and the same is upheld. 11. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 05.06.2025 Manzoor Manzoor Ul Hassan Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Srinagar 01.07.2025 09:52