O) o, ^' /. IN^THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.AJC) N0. ^S^—/ 2009 sf" IVIS Appellants Non-Applicants ^' .....^j^' ^••:^:^^ ^ '' .....^w v .^Be<>'e' ^^v>'""" ^s^' VERSUS Respondents : Ramlala Pandey S/o Ramadhar, Aged about 50 years R/o Hatkachaura, Tahsil - Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar-(C.G.) —Ownerof Vehicle-— Sandeep Kumar Pandey S/o Ramlala Pandey, Aged about 18 year, R/o Adawal, Near Cold storage, P.0. - Adawal, Tahsil - Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar-(C.G.) —Driverof Vehicle— Smt. Sudhama Mandal W/o Late Jagannath Mandal @ Sanu, Aged about 32 years Minor Nikhil Mandal S/o Late Jagannath Mandal @ Sanu, Aged about 12 years Minor Rajesh Mandal S/o Late Jagannath Maiidal @ Sanu, Aged about 14 year, Respondent No.2 85 3 are minors through mother Smt.Sudhama Mandal W/o Late Jagannath Mandal @ Sanu, All are R/o Bandaguda, Kotpad, Distt. Korapur (Orissa) The New India Insurance Company, Branch Jagdalpur, Through - Its Branch Managar, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) —Insurer— MISC APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OFTHE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT _ „_„- !<< ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi, & Hon'ble Shri G. Minhajuddin, JJ. APPELLANT RESPONDENTS APPELLANT M. A.fONo. 1152 of 2009 Ramlala Pandey & another -Versus- Smt. Sudhama Mandal & others AND M. A. (C)Np. 1167 of 2009 Ramlala Pandey & another -Versus- RESPONDENTS Kamlu Ram and another Shri Subhash Yadav, counsel for the appellants/owner & driver. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for the respondent/Insurance Cornp. None for the respondents/claimants, though served. ORDER(Orall (Passed on this 8th day ofNovember, 2011) Per I. M. Quddusi, J l.r The aforementioned both the appeals (M. A. (.C) Nos. 1152/2009 and 1167/2009) arebeing decided by this common order as they arise from the common award dated 4th April, 2009 passed in Claim Case No. 168/2007 (Smt. Sudhama Mandal & others Vs, Sandip Kumar Pandey & others) and 249/2007 (Kamlu Ram Vs. Sandip Kumar Pandey & others), arising out ofone and the sa.me accident occurred on 23.4.2007 by the vehicle - Truck, bearing .regist.ration No. HR-38/B/4817. 2. The facts in briefare that on 23.4.2007 at about 7.30 a.m.Jagannath Mandal a.nd Kamluram were traveling from Kotpad to Jagdalpur by the Jeep, bearing registration No. C.G. 17-ZD-0874. Oi-i the way, the driver of the Jeep, in order to have a brief halt, stopped the Jeep at \ ^^^ 7. Hafiz Hotel. At that time the non-applicant No.l (Sandip Kumar Pandey), driving the Truck, bearing registration No. HR-38/B/4817, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the Jeep, which was stationary. In that accident Jagannath Mandal died on the spot and Kamluram received grievous injuries. The vehicle was owned by the non-applicant No. 2 (Ramlala Pandey) and it was insured by the non-applicant No.3 (The New India Assurance Company Ltd.). The legal heirs/dependents ofJagannath Mandal filed the Claim Case No. 168/2007 under Section 166 of the Motor VehiclesAct, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 16,20,OOO/- and the injured/clamant Kamluram filed the Claim Case No. 249/2007 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation ofRs. 4,36,000/-. Learned ClaimsTribunal having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record decided both the claim petitions by the common award dated 4.4.2009, awarding a total sum of Rs. 4,54,000/- in Claim Case No. 168/2007 { M.A.(C) No. 1152/2009 } and Rs. 54,000/- in Claim CaseNo. 249/2007 { M.A.(C) No. 1167/2009 } holding the non-applicants No. 1 and 2 ( Driver and Owner) as liable to pay the amount ofcompensation. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company and perused the records. On perusal of the record it is evident that the non-applicant No.l (Sandip Kumar Pandey), who was driving the Truck was aged about 18 years at the time of accident and the Truck, which was being driven by him comes under the category of Heavy Motor Vehicle ^.^^^!% JD'^ 8. (HMV). Chapter II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 contains the provisions for "Licensing of Drivers of Motor Vehicles". Rule 3 provides that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence and it debars a person to drive a transport vehicle unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. Rule 4 provides that no person under the age of eighteen years shall drive a.motor vehicle in any public place and furfher that no person under the age of twenty years shall drive a transport vehicle in any public place. Rule 7 provides that no person shall be granted a learner'3 licence to drive a transporf vehicle unless he has held a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle for at least one year. Therefore, in the instant case^ the driver of the offending Truck could not have been issued a licence to drive a HMV because for getting such licence the first condition is that the seeker will have to obtain the learner's licence, thereafter, the light motor vehicle (LMV) licence and then afterone year only the heavy motor vehicle (HMV) licence is granted. Therefore, the question of the driver of the Truck having a valid and effective driving licence, who was only 18 years of age, does not arise. Therefore, so far as the question of fastening liability to pay compensation upon the appellants (owner and driver) in both the claim cases is concerned, we do not find any force in the arguments advanccd by learned counsel for the appellants. As such the appeal on this count is not sustainable. In respect of quantum part of the award in Claim Case No. 168/2007 is concerned, learned Tribunal 'has rightly assessed the annual dependency of Rs. 24,000/-, taking into consideration the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3000/- after deducting l/3rd towards personal and living expenses. However, in our opinion, instead of 16, .."ss^ '/y:^ '% ^ ^SI®^^ ^e.3?< the multiplier ofl5 would be applicable in the present case, as is applicable to the age group of 36 to 40 years. Therefore, according to us, total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,60,000/- ( 24,000 x 15). In addition to that, we award Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 5,000/- for loss ofestate and Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses i.e. total Rs. 15,000/- under other heads, instead of Rs. 70,000/-. Further, the amount of compensation should carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum, instead of 7.5% p.a. 9. In view of the above, we allow M. A. (C) No.1152/2009 in part and modify the impugned award to the extent that the claimants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs. 3,75,000/- with interest @ 6%p.a. from the date of the application, from the appellants, jointly and severally. Restof the conditions imposed in the impugned award shall remain intact. 10. We have also examined the quantum part in Claim Case No. 249/2007 wherein learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of 54,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. .Having regard to the facts situation and the injuries sustained by the injured/claimant, which have resulted into 50% permanent disability in his right hand, coupled with the fact that he was earning his livelihood by doing the work as Labour, we do not find any force in this appeal to reduce the amount of compensation. 11. In view of the above, the M.A,(C) No. 1167/2009 is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Thakur