r,.''': ^ .-^ ..f' ^ ^ t 3 .CN> . .-, M.A^No. 5^3 /200i > IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH N, JUDICATURE BILASPUR . , »««<A^ ^<o. <2>/^/200it ^^^^^"^^A ^ ^ C •^lffco Toldo General Insuraiice Co. Ltd. 3 Floor, Lal Ganga Shopping Complex, G.E. Road, ^Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Through Authorized Signatory K.K. Agrawal — Appellant Versus, Smt. Bhagwati W/o Bhagirathi Markandey, Aged 38 years Bhagirathi Markandey S/o Anandram Markandey, Aged- 40 years Both R/o Village Godicoat Tehsil Gariyaband, . District < Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Maheshuiam Gayakwad S/o Kedamath, R/o Village Bharega Tehsil Abhanpur DisMct Raipur Chhattisgarh. — Respondents MISCLLENEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION T^3 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT J^ND AWARD DATED 2TO-2006 PASSED BY LEARNED^niTH ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDgNTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR m CLAIM CASE NOJ/2006, SMT. BHAGWATI AND OTHERS VERSUS MAHESHURAM GAYAKWAD AND OTHERS WHEREBY THE LEARNED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM APPLICATION FILED BY THE CLAIMANTS. > 3, \ ^!£Ka^. ^%^j ^f/. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLEMR. GULAM MINHAJUDDIN. JJ. M.A. M No.363/2007 Appellant Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Respondents Smt. Bhagwati & others. Present: Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate for the appellant. None appeared for the respondents even in the second call. ORDERfOrall (4fflAugust,20il) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. By way of this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehictes Act. 1988 (for short 'the Act, 1988'), the appellant-lnsurance Company has challenged the award dated 28.9.2006 passed by the learned 13th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, FTC, Raipur (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.9/06. 2. Facts ofthe case, in brief, are that on 24.11.2005 deceased Kamnarayan along with his relative namely Hemlal was returning to his home situated in Village Godikot on the Hero-Honda motorcycle. Hemlal was driving said motorcycle and the deceased was traveting as pillion rider. Due to rash and negligent driving by said Hemlal, the motorcycle dashed against the tr®8as a result the deceased sustained grievous tnjuries and died on the spot. The ctaimante, who are parents of the deceased, have filed a claim application before the Ciaims Tribunat seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.14.20.000/- on the ground that the deceased was the sole eaming member in the family and they were dependent on his earnings. 3. The Claims Tribunal. after considering the materiat available on record, allowed claim application of the claimants, awarded a compensation of Rs.4,70,000/- and fastened liabilityon the appellant herein to pay compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that no extra premium was paid to cover risk of the deceased who was traveling as pillion rkler in the said motorcycle. He furfher submits that while fixing compensation the Claims Tribunal has not f<?Nowed the law of land i.e. decision ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter\of Saria Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation fii anothei- repprted in (2009) 6 SCC121. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. We have also perused records of the Claims Tribunal as also impugned awa 6. The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority vide its circular dated 16.11.2009, addressed to all the General Insurance Companies, directed that insured's liability in respect of occupant (s) carried in a private car and pillion rider carried on two-wheelers is covered under the Standard Motor Package Policy. 7. In view of the above, since in the instant case also there is a package poticy, therefore, the first argument advanced by learned counsel for.the appellant has no force. 8. So far as the quantum part of the impugned award is concerned, perusal of the impugned award shows that the Claims Tribunal has deducted 1/3 from the income of the deceased towards his personaland living expenses of the deceased»which is not proper in view of the judgment of the Hon'bte Supreme Court in the matter of Sarta Verma (supra) wherein it has been held that in a case where the deceased is a bachelor, 50% deduction towards personal expenditure of the deceased is to be made. 9. Accordingly, if we deduct 50% from the annual Income of the deceased i.e. Rs.43,200/-, as assessed by the Claims Tribunal, the total los's of income would come to Rs.21,600/- and accordingly the loss of dependency would come to Rs.3,24,000/- (21600x15). Besides this, the claimants are ateo entitled to get Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.3,39,000/- as compensat'ion. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modify to the extent that now the daimants shall be entitled for Rs.3,39.000/- as compensation in place of Rs.4,70,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. They shall ateo be entitled for Simple tnterest @ 6% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of filing of application till actual payment fe made. Rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 11. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to coste^ Roshan/- Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge '\.