L IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH Cc5^r--'v'" MISC.APPEALCASS^NO. 5^?- »%»'-l's /2011 APPELLANT (N.A.No.3) Insurer ^^ »-- 6^) ^-^^ •'•" ...A.-lr?' .^" --:'%>^ .x^--^ --^.. \\ VERSUS RESPONDENTS :1. r No.l852Claimants 2. Dnver of the offending Vehicle 3. National Insurance Co.Ltd., Through - Registered Main Office, 3 Middleton Street ^ KoUcatta, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Akash Ganga Parisar Supela Bhilai, Tahsil 8s Distt. D.urg and Branch Manager, Branch Office Kamptee Line, Rajnandgaon (C.G.), Through - Authorised Signatory National Insurance Co.Ltd., Divl. Office, Priyadarshini Nagar, Bilaspur- (C.G.) Bahal Ram Verma S/o Shri Phoolsingh Verma, Aged about 50 years, Caste - Lodhi Malti Bai Verma W/o Bahal R^in Verma, Aged about 48 years Both R/o VUlage Bhalukonha, P.S. - Ghumka, Thasil 85 Distt. Rajnandgaon- (C.G.) Kamta Prasad Nishad @ Kanta S/o Aatma Ram Nisbad, Aged r Owner of the offending Vehicle 4. Widow of the Deceased N.A.No.4 5. about 22 years, R/o Village Bhalukonha, P.S. - Ghumka, Tahsil 8s Distt. Rajnandgaon- (C.G.) Gyaneshwar Verma S/o Rewa Ram Verma, Aged about 40 years, R/o Village - Bhalukonha, P.S. - Ghumka, Tahsil 85 Distt. Rajnandgaon- (C.G.) Sint. Radhika @ Kumari Verma Aged about 22 years, W/o Late Bhupendra Singh Verma, Presently residence of Kheinuram Lodhi, R/ovillage Kasari, P.0. Sukuldaihan, P.S. - Dongargarh, Tahsil & Distt. Rajnandgaon Daneshwar Verma S/o Late Shri Bhupendra Singh Verma, Minor Through Guardian Mother Radhika @ Kumari Verma, W/o Late Bhupendra Singh Verma, Presently 'Residence - Khemuram Lodhi, R/o VUlage - Kasari, P.0. Sukuldaihan, P.S. Dongargarh, Tahsil 85 Distt. Rajnandgaon-(C.G.) MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLE ACT^1988 Minor S/o ofthe 6. Deceased N.A.No.5 r -^^ S k .<.-rf^ 1 g tB^:?^ § HIGH COURTOPCHHATTISQARH.BILA^UR DB: HON'BLB I. M. QUDDU8I te HOITBLE G. MINHAJUDDUI, JJ MISC. APPBAL (Ct No.532/2011 APPELLANT: RBSPONDBNT8: National Insurance Coinpauy Ltd. Vs. Bahal Ram Venna and others MI8C. APPBAL OWDBR 8ECTIOK 173 OF THE MOTOR VBHICLE® ACT.1988 <-. Appewance: Mr. S.N. Nande, Coiinsel for fhe appeBant. Mr. C. R. Sahu, counsel for respondents 1 & 2. Mr. Rajendra Tripatlu, counsel for respondents 5 & 6. ORAL ORDER/JUDGMBNT (19.09.2011) Per I.M. QUDDU8I. J. 1. This appeal has been filed by fhe Insiiraacc Coinpaay against the unpugacd award dated 08.11.2010 passed by fhe Ist Additional Motor Accident Clauas Tribiuial, Rajnandgaou Diatt. Rajnandgaon, CUhattisgarh, m Claim Case No. 64/2008 agamst fhe UabiU.ly as well as quautum part 2. The application u/s 170 offhe MotorVehicles Actwas rejectcd, but we are of the opiaion fhat fhe owner and driver iu fheir written stetement, have §stated fhat whatcver fhe axaozmt of coiupehsation is to be fixed by fhe Tribiuial, fhje Insuiaace Compaay would be responsible to pay. In such citcumstances the Tribiinal shoiild have treated ttus part of fhe written stateiuent as coUusion between. the owner and fh.e claimaats aad therefore, the application u/s 170 of fhe Act shoukl not ^o have been rejected. The appeUaat has chaUeE^ed fhe icjectfon order iu fhe instant appeal. Therefore, we are of the opinion fhat fhe Clauns Tribunal has committed nianifest error of law in rejecting the application u/s 170 ofthe MVA. In view ofthe above, we would consider the quantum part of the award also. 3. Brief facts of the case as per fhe version of fhe claimaats are fhat on 19.01.2008 deceased Bhupeiulra Singh alongwith others had gone to work as labourer in Tractor bearing Regu.No.C.G.08-C/7464 and TroUey No.C.G.08-0/7465 owiied by Ramprasad. On the way near village Bbalukonha, aaother Tractor bearing Regu.No.C.G.07-D/7307 and TroBey NO.C.G. 07-D/7308 (for short ''offending vehicle") which was being driven by respondent No.3 herein. in a rash aad negl^ent iiiaiiacr dashed fhe Tractor-Trolley No. C.G.08-C/7464 & No.C.G.08-C/7465 as a rcsult ofwhich Bhupendra Siagh who was sitting ia the said Tractor Trolley feU down and died. It was stated iu the claiai petition fhat at the tiiae of accident, fhe deceased was aged about 26 years and was eamiag Rs.3000/- per nionfh by working as labourer. per uionth, The clauaants being legal represcntativcs/ dependents of the deceased have filed claim petidon u/s 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act for fhe , award of a total coinpensation of Rs.6,22,000/- on vanous heads. 4. Learued Claims Tribunal has held fhat fhe offendiug Tractor TroIIey wliich was being driyen by respondent no.3 ia a rash aad negligcnt maaner caused the acddent, aa a result ofwhich Bhupendra Siagh (Ued; there was no breach of conditions of f- fhe Insuraacc PoUcy by respondente 3 & 4; the driver ofTractor TroUey No, C.G.08-C/7464 aad 7465 iiamely Deonarayan was not responsible for fhe accident aad fhe claimaats are entifled to receive a totel conipensation of Rs.4,57,000/- fiuia fhe non- appUcaats 1 to 3 including fhe appeUautjointly or severalty. S. We have heard learaed counsel for the parties at lengfh and have also gonc through fhe records. 6. So far as it relates to liabfflily part, we have perused the LCR and foimd that fhe driver was having a leamer's Ucence but a trained person who was having a valid and effective driving licence was sittfng wifh hun. and fherefore, there was no breach ofRule 3 offhe Central MotorVehlcles Rules 1989. 7. Regarduig leamer's licence, a fhree Judge Bench offhc Hon'bk Supreme Court ia Ndttoned Jnsurance Co. Ltd -Vs- Sufureui Singh cuid others (2004) reported in 3 SCC 297 held in Para 94 tbat "leamers' licences are granted under fhe Rules fomed by the Central Govenuneut or fhje State Govemments in exercise of fheir rule-inaking power. Conditmns are attached to fhe leamer's Ucences granted ia tenns offhe statute. A person holdiag •leamer's liGencc would, thus, also coinc wiffain the purview of "duly Ucensed" ~'^s such a Ucence is ateo granted ia terms of fhe provMU)us of fhe Act and the Rules fi-anaed fhereunder. It M now a weU setded principle of law fhat rules vaUdly frained beeoiiie part of the statute. Such nries axe, fherefoie, required to be read as a part offhe.aiam ciiactment It is also a weU setflcd principle of law fhat for the iateipretetion of statute an attenapt must be inade to give effect r to aU provisions under fhe rule. No provision should be considered as surplusage. The Supreme Court also held iu para 93 that it cannot be said that a person holdu^ a learaer's licence is not entitlcd to driye fhe vehicle. Even if fhere cxists a condition ia fhe contract of insurance fhat fhe vehicle cannot be driven by a person holding a leanier's liccnce, the same would run counter to fhe provisions of Section l49(2) of fhe said Act. If a vchicle at ffae time of accident was driven by a person having a learuer's liceuce, the iasuraace comiparues would be Uable to satusfy fhe decree." 8. In the condition of the InsuBaace PoUcy of fh.e vehicle ia question, it has been. inentioned under th.e head "Persons or Ctosses of Persons entttted tu drtmf fhat "Any person iacludiag Iitsured provMed fhat a person driving holds aa effective driviag licence at fhe tune of fhe accident aad is not disquaUfied from. holdmg or obtaining such a licence. Provided also fhat fhe person holding aa efFective Leamer's Licence inay also drive the vehicte aad such a person satisfies fhe requireinents of Rule 3 of Centaal Motor Vehicle Rule, 1989". In yiew of fhe above discussion, it canaot be said fhat fhere was any breach of tonditious of fhe lasuraace PoUcy or breach ofanyoffhe rules. 9. Leamed couusel for the appellant now submits fhat fhere was coniposite negligeace on the part of both the Tractor Drivers, fherefore, fhe owner of the ofher Tractor TroUey bearing Regn. No. C.G.08-C/7464 & 7465 is also responsible. to pay coinpeasation. In our opinion it -was ftic discretion of fhe :\jl claimants to file claim petition agamst aay of the owner of fhe Tractors ia view of fhe decision of Hon'ble fhe Apex Court in T.0. Anthony Vs. Keiroeinuiin cwA others reporfed wi (2008) 3 SCC 748 whereia it bas beeu held in. Para 6 fhat ia case of coniposite negl^ence, each wrong doer is joinffy and severatly liable to fhe clauaaute/injitred for paymeat of entire damages and the claunante/injiu-ed tiave fhe choice of proceediag against aU. or aay offhem. 10. With regard to quaatum part, we have perused the slatements of witnesses also aad found that fhe parents were not depeadants of fhe deccased. The deceased was liviag separately and lus wife aud miaor son were his dependents. The fafher of fhe deceased was in possessioa of aa agricultuTal ]aad. The parents have also ofher sons who are elder to fhe dece^ied, and fherefore, fhey were not entitled to get aay amount ofconipensation iu absence ofauy loss ofdependency. Therefore, treatu^ the iacoine of fhe deces^ed as Rs.3000/- per inonfh. i.e., Rs.36,000/- per aim.um., l/3rd towaads personal and liviug expenses was Uable to be deducted. Thus upon deductiag l/3rd, fhe aimual loss of dependency conies to Rs.24,000/-. The age of fhe deceased vras 26 years aad fherefore, a laultiplier of 17 was applicable as laul down by Hon'ble fhe Supreme Qanxt in case of Stwte Vermu (Smt.) -oa- DelM. Trtuuport CoiporaUon awtt. emother reported <n (2009) 6 SCC 121. Therefore, after apptyu^ multipUer 17, fhc total loss ofdependency is worked out as Rs.4,08,000/- (24000 x 17). Besides fhis, fhe widow is entifled to get Rs. 10,000/ - for fhe loss of consortium; and Rs.10,000/- for toss ofestate and >' Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses, which ia all comes to Rs.25,000/- over fhe other heads. Aficr adding ttus amount, the total ainount of coiapensation coines to Rs.4,33,000/- which fhe claunaats are entifled to receive fix>m fhe appcUant Insuraace Conipany. Accordmgly, the amouat awarded by fhe Tnbunal that te Rs.4,57,000/- is liable to be and is hereby reduced to Rs.4,33,000/-. Ttols award shall also cany snaple interest @ 6% per aanum aar'granted by fhe Tribunal fiTom. fhe date of tlic filing of the claun petition tiU fhe payment is inade. Out of fhis amount, Rs.4 lakhs shaU be kept iu a fixed deposit for a period of 15 years ia fhe aaine of nuaor son of fhe deceased iiamcly Daneshwar Verma, s/o late Bhupendra Singh under the guardianship of her inofher namely Sm.t Radtulca aUas Kumari Verma, widow of late Bhupendra Siagh Verma. The coinpensation in respect of loss of estate aad fdneral expenses that is 15,000/- shaU be paM jointty to the parents namely Bahal Ram Venna aud Malti Bai Venna. Rest of fhe amount shaU be paid directfy to fhe widow offhe deceased. 11. In fhe result, fhe appeal is aUowed ia parfc The inipi^ned award dated 08.11.2010 is modificd in the above terms, No order as to cbst(s). - -^__a^_ Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Rao