B IN THE H.yN'BLE.HiaiaCOlJRI €t£-CaH^FtISGAKHAT KL&SBUB. ALA^C) No. .S.-l-^- OIi'20IO (APEBALVALUED A3C tte. 2A2JOOQ /-l APEEAL_IJNO@!-SEC'nQN.l73--OJ? IHE.MCaE>RA'EHICLESACT-.19S8. APPEUANT (NON-APPUCANT Na3) . \^^ "g^gr RESPONDENTS (APPUCANTNO.l) (APEUCANTN0.2) ^-'Uoited Inriia lasuraace Cainpany Uaated, Throu^i; Jts Dirisioaal Maoager, DivisixBxal-Qffice, Erishnn CompIex-Jst Hoor, JKucbery Chowk, Raipur (CG). VEKSUS rl, Biseaath Jangde, S/0 late- Budhram, aged-50 years, ^ Smt. Lukam, W/0- Bishnenath ,/ Jangde, aged-47 years, Both areR/0-VJH.-Barbaspur, P.S.- Kotwali, Distt.- Mahasmuad (C.G.) (NON-APPUCANTNO.l) ^ :3. Chaturbhuj Sahu ,S/0-Kangalu Salui, aged-45 years, R/O-VilL- Arjuada, P.S.-Saraipali, Distt.- Mahasmzind (C.G.) :A (N9W-APPLICANTN0.2) >/ Kishore Kumar Agrawal, S/0- Nunkaraa Agrawal, aged-47 years, R/0-Padampur Road Sohela, Distt.- Bargarh(OrisE^. HIQH COURT OE'CHHATFISGARH AT BILASPUR M. A. (CS N0. 542 OF 2010 APPBLLANT/SOS- APPLICANT N0.3 RESPOKDBiSTS Vs. Uuitcd ludia lusufauc-c Coiupauy I^TnitjRd. Biseuath. Jajugde and othci-s APPELL&NT/NOK- APPUCANT N0.3 RESPONDENTS ;. A. (Ci KG. 544 OF 2010 UuiS.cd ludia. lusui'auce Cuiupaiiy I^tnited Vs Chctan Sahu sssd others B nEK5-—S APPEALS UNDER SECTIQW 173 OFTHE MOTOR VEHICLES :-!-j11 •~A©R-1988- M ''•' D3: Hoa'lite8Su?iJ. M.Qaddusifc Hoa'faIsShrlG. Minhagaddia, J3. PTRscnt Shri DaslirafhiGiipta, leounsel ftir tiw. appeTiaot. Shri M.K. Bhaduri, ebunselforrespondeats N6.1 & 2 (in M.A.(q No.542/2010) Sttri Vikram Dixit, c&uascl &r rcspoadcat No.4. Shri Sanjeev Banjare, coiinsel on behatt' of Shri Awadh Tripafhi, couasel for responden.ts No. 1 & 2 (in M.A.(C) No.544/2010). GRAL ORBER (Passed oa lSf>1 day ofOctober, 20111 / Per I. M. Quddusi, J. f // These taro appeals have beea filed by tiie lusuiance agaiu.st the impugned award dated 02.02.2010 passed f "\:. \ ' • ..-. separatety by fhe Chief Motor AccMent Claims Tribuaal, Maliasaumiid in Clauu Case Nos. 155/2009 aod 143/2009, ia ao far as it relates to faBteuing the IIabUlty upou the appeBaut Insucauce Cpuipauy to pay coutpen.sation to fbe clauB.auts as well asou,fKequi=stionbffi?iiB.gfhfiquautum.. ^~--. »B»«». 2. Since bofh. ftiese appeals arise out offhfi saaie accident mcf with by fhe Vehiele Trucfc beariag Rega.No.04-J/3512, they are beu^ disposed ofby thls common order. 3. M.A(C).No.542/20lO relates to Clamx Case No. 153/2009 (Biseaafh. Jaugde and auother-vs- Chafrarbliuj Saliu aud offaers) \ in which a total couipensatmu aiaount ofRs.2,42,000/- Iias beea awarded and M.A.(q. No.544/2010 relates to Claim Case No. 143/3009 (Chetaa Saliu and aaother -^vs- eiiat-urbfa.uj Saliu and Qfhers} la wluch a Itotal coiap&asation of Rs;3,G2;000/- has beea awaaled. ^ 4. Brieffacts ofthe case, as^pcr thfi veision ofttie claimants, are fhat oa 24.05.2009! at a'bouti 7-30 P.M., deceased persons aamdy Rakesh Jaugde aad Neelachal Sah.u aloug wifh other labourers had goae to woA oa;the Truck beariiig Registratjioii No. C.G.04-J/3512. It is not disputed tfaat Keelachal was workiag as- Cleauer (coacluctor) aad Rakesti. Jaagde was a Labour (cooliej. After loadkig flooriiig stones ux fh.e Truck at Rajeudra Floorio.g Miaes ofvlBage Bafbaspftu-, they?were return ing by the said Tnick alougwjth fhe material.1 The said •Truekwliich was belng driyeu by uou-appljcaut ao.l in. a rasti aud negl^ent xttanner/feU dowa •^.s io.to the mjnes upto tiiejdepthof 40-50 feet, as a resiA. ofwhksh, deceased Rakesh Jaugde and. ;NeelachaL Salu. both siistaiued .,. ,..:..... ... . f . •• grievous injuries and died on.fhe spot. The report offhe lacident was lodged iu fhe Police Station Maliasamiiad, where Cricae No. 193/2009 was Kgistei'ed u/ss. 279, 337, 333 aud 304-A of IPC. 5.''.-aEi'Itifiiac1j:>iFna nts betag legal r&presentatwes/dep&u.d&&ts of ttie ?3e<»ased Ralsesh flaogde iand Neelaclial 3a2iu bave filed -"^ separate claua petltions u/s 166 of the Motor Vehlcles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Acfj for the award of a total coxupeusatioa of Rs.19,20,000/- aad Rs.20,10,000/- respectively, in bofh the clami cases. 6. Learued Ciaims Tfibujaat haviag regard to ftie facts situatkin, material aad evidence available oa reeoi'd has heM fhat the Vehicle bearing RegistcatMa No. C.G.04-J/3512 was bciag (iriven. by the nou.-appUcaat ao.l Chaturbhuj Sahu, in. a rash aad negUgeat iaannef, therefor'e, caet wlfh the aecMeat, as a result of w]u<^,gdeeeased;;I?akesh.,,Jau.gde (Goplifi),dnd Neelachal (cteaae^ bottb;;died. i'l^dj^EtW^.jlia^g^vali^K effectAre drwiiig UeenGeiSt ^thfi timeic^accMeffit anAthjete was^ i^ of the cQudJti0a^o£;fhje;4asuiaacepjXillcyaai^eimltsand. ;the claimants ofde^asediKals^hJao^d&.ai^NeelaclL&lareentMe^ reeeiffe a te)tal,eQittBensation.ofiRs.2,42,OpO/- and,Rs.3,G2,QQP/- atong with, laterest @ 6% per annum, iiespectively, fipia fhe non- appUcsuits joinfly aad severaUy. 7. We have heard teamed jcoiuisel fbr fhe parties and have also gone fh.rougii the recordsoftfae Tribunal. 8, A perusal offhe copy oftlie iasurauce policy fileil with the appeal shows fliat adQ.itwaaQ. • prern 'mm for tsffo ealpioyeea was paid by fhe iusured and Conditioa IIvTT-39 speaks that thei-e can be jBaaximnm 7 persons Le.,i inclusive of driyer and dcaner. In M.A,(C) No. 544/2010 j arisiag out ofclaua case No. 143/2009, slnc& tfae deceased: was cleaa.er (cpnducto4» '1Lt caanot be s&id tiiat his nsk was not xsoserec!,;! uuder tlie terms of fhe policy. TiiecefoEe^'fliJB coBteu<;iou tfaat appeUaat iasurance Cojiipaay 1s ••sss^1^ not liable to pay coiapeasatiion to fhe clakaauts of deceased Neelaehal (cleauer) is aot sustauiable iu ftie eyes oflaw. 9. So Sar aa ftle question of qua&tuni is concerued, in Claim Case No. 143/2009, relating to M.A{C).544/2010, the Tribuual has taken fh.e lacome of the deceased as Rs.4500/- per aiontii and Rs.34,000/- per annnm beiug a skflled labour i.e., cleauer cum mechaulc, whi.ch does uot caU for iiiterference. However, fue Tribuual has deducted l/3Id towards personal and Hvin^ expenses whfch is notpispef. lSiocetue;4eeeasedwasaged 22 year&"AU(l;w&s a liafiheloi.^oiie Iialf (1,/|2}; has to be dcducted instead^o£isl;/3rd§itQRraijd8;personal audi asriiig- expenses. After deductiag, oue ihalfyi^2),gith&|ajinuatAss ofsde^ would eoiae^ to i,Rs.3Z,QQC)/i-^i5flGQa |- S 2Z0005?. !Hi& ..parents being claluiaats,s:/fhe,agetQf;'ttis pacents are liabte to be cousidered. In. the caseijO'n.^Iiand.ifhjeiaverage^ageof.tlie parents coflifis to 53 years. ItHis, aeeQfcLing to t&e InM-iUipUer scate prescribed by Hofl'ble ftse: Supreme Court la ;case of Seti^lei. yenna: (Snit.S 'Vs. BeUii Trttnsport CerporafS.on. and Asiother; reported iu f200S) 6 SCC 121, muMJplier II would have been appUcable. Therefore, ou. applying multipl^r pf 11, tlie total loss of dependeney coin.es to Rs.2,97,000/-. Besides fhis, the claimauts are alsg'eatitied to ' ' ^ ^ s • ' . f' get Rs.10,000/- &r loss of estate aud Rs.5000/- for funeral expeus^s •wliich ia aUioojnes'ito Rs.15,000/- uader fhfi other heads. After addiag R^. l5,000/ - to fhe total loss of dependcacy l.e., Rs.2,97ftQQit-, ftiejtotal aniount of compensatiou comes to r" : ' Rs.3,12^3©0^-,whereas|tfae Tribujaal has awarded Rs.3,62,000/- whx:lij seeias to be on liigher side aud. it is Uable to be reduced. ThereftU'e, the awartt; jof fhfi Claiais Trib'aflal is rediiced to Rs.3yl.3,OGO/- wlucli the clalmauts are eutided to receroe froia the ^^s^B-^S'S^, ^•^s^^^^M ^J^© appeBaat lusurauce Coiupany. The rest of fue condltioiis aieutioned ia ftie uapugued award shall femaki. iutact exc-ept fhe difection regarding disbiirseuient of the aiaotuit of compensatiou whieh. shaU be fliade as uuder. Rs. 2,50,000/-'shaU 'be kcpt iu fixed. deposit ia a nationaUzed bank iti fhe joiat aame oftb.e pareflts/clauBants arid remaining anioiiat sIiaUibe pald direcfly to tfae elauuauts. 10, So far as it relates to Claim Case No, 155/2009 relatlng to M.A.C.No.542/2010, deceased Rateesh jai^de had gone to work as labbur (Goolie) .ui fhe said. Vehicle. A perusal of fhe concUtion IBffT 39;Q6tte3Aszu:anceiP£)Ue^shows1±aMli^ 7-;'^p&raurtsaB(d'l(^^:.^^w^|a^m&^^ tlie v&hJcle. BuCftiea.ulsiireA'Iias Epaia.i.piiemiiivn for only two euiplcyces Tinder the iWQikmen'si eoutpensatiouSAet tliat is; foc dsacier aad cLeiyer but no extrai^pfemiuia was.paid ia respect of ollifirs..s,1'hEi«forc, fhe msuraace Coimpauy is uot liable to jpay coiapensatiou iu respect ofa third &niployee whp was traveluig as Labourer. 11. A perusal of the insuiance Policy ffled witii fhe appeal farther shows that the|veluc3etwas iusured for the period froin 24.05.2009 to 23.05.201t0. The accMeut took place on :a4.5.2009 li ..! .''-.. ' .. i?1' at about 7.30 p.m. The wituess ofthe appeltant Aagitid prakash "Kujur, ou tihe basis of the previous policy feu- thfi period of 24.05.2008 to 23.05.2Q09, hasiwrongly deposed that flie vehlcle was iusiu'ed &r covering tiie^ risk of 3 empkyees, whereas he ouglit tQ have depbsed 0ri the b^is ofttie iusufaace policy for fhe penod of24.Q5.2009 toJ23.05J2010, by which thc risk of onfy two euiployees i.e., driver aad eleapfir ,is covered. Here ia fbe iustaut case, sinceltifi Rolijcwlias coveredithe nsk oftwo &mp]oyees fhat '^^.ft^s^S^SjS^^ .:••;?.',--.;^•^^'J^g'y'^i;; 'fwsv''^ tsy^\ ':"^" {."^ ~ ^ Is driver aud cleaaer driyer, we havc aSlriD.cd tii.e graat of cojapeusation to the clauaiauts of deceased NeelacSial, {cleaaerj However, so &r as fhe risk of deceased Raltcsh Jaagde 1s concerned, the in.suraiice Compauy 1s not liaUe to pay any coBipeusattOU. as lie was travelliag as a labourer aad no exti'a preicuuiu. was paid lu respect of ofhers fhougfa fhe rlsk caa be covered masdmum for 7 pcrsous sittmg ia the vehlcls iucludiag dnyer aud cleaner under the . coadi.tion IMT-39 of fh.e policy. TIierefore, •the las'i.u-atiGp Coiapauy.ls exouerated froiEL y&ym.cB.t of cooipe.p.sation la Clami Case No. 155/2009. 12. Now cpinjng to the qncstioa of quautum., tbe TiToiui&l ba.s takeutUe iucoiuiS.bf the(:teGeasedasRs.3000/-peT itionfh. and Rs.3u,000/s- j3eryanniTm,u"wiuch uoes not catt-fbf lateffsrence. However,,xh.eTnb'unaI;iiasuea.uctcdl/3rd towards persoaal and Uvlag expenses whlch ' ia not proper. Siace fhe dcceased was bachelor, one Iialf (1/2) has to be deducted and not l/3rd. Thereafter, after dcductkig one half (1/2), the &anual loss of dependency would come to Rs.18,000/- (36,000 - 18000). Tlis parents beMg claimaats, the .age of the pareats ai'e liable to bc coiisidcred. Tlie aver^e age bf fhc pareats coia.es tp 49 and accordiag to the HiultlpUer seafe prescrlbcd by pba'ble tuc Supr&me Court la case of, S-afta. Vann.a. (Sffii} Vs. SslM yivfas^iort CsiyoraUon eiad &nMhw reporSed Isi (30-39) Q SCC 131, .oiultlplier of 13 would hav-e.been applicable la the preseut casc. Accordiagly, on applyiug in.iiltipUer of 13, the total loss of (iegeadency'eoiues to Rs.2,34;QOO/-, Besides fhis, f&e cledmants arc also entifled to get Rs,10,OQO/- for loss of cstats aud Rs.SQQO/- fcr funeral es^pensesschjch lu aB. comes to Rs. 15,000/- under''the ofb.er Iieads. EAfter addlag Rs.15,000/- •to the total loss_ 'sfcB^A^muaa'B&Uaa.aaaar III•i B! V,s' Kvr of depeu.deucy i.e., Rs.2,34,000/-, fhe total amouat of coiapeusation comes to Rs.2,49,000/- wliereas fh.e TiToLUial has awarded. Rs.2,42,000/- which is aa adequate compensation aud does not caU fcr iiiterfereuce. lu view of fhe above dlscusslon, we hoU fhat fhe Insuraace Conipany te not Uable to pay coaipensatiou. However, it wffl be open for the claimaats to recover fhe auiouut froni tbe owner aud driver of the veulcle, joinfly aad severally. The 'amouut which is ia deposlt shaB be reftuided to fhe Insupaace CoBipauy, However, if fh.e acaount deposited by the Insuranee Couipauy has been dlsbursed to th.e clauaauts flieii, it wiil|be open for fhe insurauce couipany to recover fcoiB. fhe owner and drwerjoiutiy aad severaUy. 13. In. the result, M.A.(Q No. 542/2010 is aliflwed 'and M.A.(Q No. 544/2010 is allowed ittpart. No order asto cosls. _ ^s^ Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- . '., G. Minhajuddin Judge ^ ^•^•i;;.lt::^