‘ J HIGHICOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR , ‘ & 'ORAM: QE‘ e!lantsl ‘ ¥ 1_ Smt Parvati Bai, Wd/o Arun Kumar ‘laimants 2 ‘Ajay, S/o Arun Kumar, aged about 1 ‘ year ' Résgondént Driver ‘ DIVISION BENCH HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI N.‘K. AGARWAL, J. Misc. Agpeal No.418 of‘2004 Caste Kashyap, aged about 20 years ‘3- ,Juthelari: sr'o Prann'athKashyap, . » _ aged about 43 years r4 r ‘SgmtrKodaiya 'Bai, W/o Jutheram 'V aged about 40 years I r Ku_ Anuéa,-D/_‘o;Juthel aged about‘12 r years ‘ - ' 'Sukhi, S/o Juthel, aged about '9.\ ears Drs, the, g ou 7 ars , o tl, ouye plln N. hro a ari r » ‘ Arun a Aplla . - natul n hoh uthe a shyp l l lnd, Tp c Bilu VERSUS arn‘ S r u t a,Biau Bhanu Kumar Duby S/o ’Trath _ ‘ e, i Bli‘ ' sal, ahsl Owner C :A C s y ugeh S/o Jul aed abt ye Ku Swaroopa S/ Juhe aged abt5ars Apeat o2 tugh ntural gudan mothe PanNati Bai, Wlo Kumr and pent No5 to 8 ra guardia trug father‘ Jl Rm Kaa ‘ Al ro VilagerPai VPO Siltara PS and Tahsil akhatur Distrit aspr (CG) ,f. ./ ' TuKumar, /o Nidesh Kuma Dbey, aged abou 31 years, R/o Mgarpara__Disttlspr ‘ , Prasad Dubey, aged about'55 years; I ) 'R/o ,Village hatakhurd, Post ,. Semar Ti Lormi, District ' Bilaspur (CG) éurer 3. Umted India ‘Insu’rance Company Ltd Bilaspur emo of a eal under Sechon 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. M resent: Shrl Gautam Khetrapal counsel forthe appellants Shrl SC Verma counsel for respondent No 2 Shn HB Agrawal Senlor Counsel With Smt Meera Jalswal counsel for respondent No 3 i a ORDER (14“? June‘, 2011) \ :The Efojllovr‘lng order of the Court was passed by ‘_Rajeev-Gtlrlita‘r'C-§‘J' ‘ A'This Is claimants appeal :for- ‘ nhancement of the, ‘ compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Acmdent Clalms Tribunal Mungell District Bilaspur (for short ‘the Tribunal) Vlde award dated 26 02 2004 passed In Claim Case No 28/2003 ‘ 2) ' As against the compensation of Rs.22,00,000/— claimed by the appellants l claimants, unfortunate widow, minor son, parents, _ brothers and sisters ’of'deCeased'Arun Kumar Kashyap, by tiling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles, Act, for his death in the motor aCCident on 12 05 2003 the Tribunal awarded a . total sum of RS439 000l- as compensation along With interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire eVidence led before it held that deceased Arun Kumar Kashyap died on account, ' o ln P 'fi 3 I of the injuries sustained by him in the motdr aCcident on 12.05.2003; ’ the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving 6f the driver of the offending vehicles tractor—trolley bearing registration No.MP 26 EA/1964 and MP 26 EA/1965; though the above offending vehicles tractor-trolley on the date of the accident were insured with‘the United India insurance Company Limited, as the ‘Same' were ibeing plied in breach of the policy conditions, the , insurance company was not Iiable to pay compensation to, the claimants and :theiliability‘in that behalf Was that of the owner and i" driver._of the tractor-trolley. ‘4) 3The ‘T;ribunal assessed the income of the' deceased at fRs.3~,000[— per month'and Rs.36,000/— per annum. By’deducting the ‘ usual 1/3'd’of Rs.36,000/— towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’.‘ dependency was assessed at Rs.24,000/— per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with thei‘multiplier of 18, the compensation was worked out to Rs.4,32,000/—1 By awarding further sum of Rs.7,000/—-iunder other heads, they Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,39,000/— as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Arun IKumar Kashyap in the motor accident. :5) Shri Gautam Khetrapal, learned counsel for ht appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in exonerating the insurer of thei tractor-trolley from its liability to pay compensation to the compenSatiOn to the claimants. 6) - Shrl HB Agrawal learned Senior Counsel With Smt Meera Jalswal learned counsel for respondent No3 the Unlted Indla Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the tractor4trolley on the other hand suppoited the award and contended that as the‘ traotor—trolley were being plied in breach of the policy conditions, the Tribunai has rightly exonerated the insurance company from its ' liability to pay compensation to'the claimants ; ‘7)‘ Shn SC Verma learned counsel for respondent No 2 Bhanu g _, Kumar Dubey, the owner of tractor trolley submitted that the Tribunal g has wrongly exonerated the insurer of the tractor-trolley from its< s liability to pay compensation to the claimants and held the owner J liable to paygcompensation to the claimants. i 8) So far as the finding recorded by the Tribunal leading'to the exoneration of the insurer of the tractor-trolley is concerned, it is apparent from the insurance policy, that the tractor-trolley was l ‘ covered under a fFarmers Package Policy’, specifically mentioning ' that the insuirance coverage was only for the use of tractor-trolley for agricultural purposes. \ _ 9) On a bare perusal of the contents of the First Information . Report produced by the claimants before the Tribunal it is apparent that the tractor~trolley at the time of the accident were‘transporting " articles of a Tent House. Thus, it is apparent that the tractor-trolley, J i at the tim‘e of the aCcident-were being\used for a purpose: other than I agriculture. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the finding i t recorded by the Tribunal leading to the exoneration of the insUrer‘Of I ‘ Hf,éz; .41 ' i \. i p i the tractor—troiley from its Iiability to pay bompensation to the claimants. In our opinion, the owner and driver of the tractor-trolley have been rightly held ‘Iiable, by the Tribunal, to pay compensation to the claimants. 10) Now, we shatl eXamine as to whether the compensation of Rs.4,39,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) ' Deceased: Arun Kumar Kashyap, according to the claimants , . was running a Kirana shop and was havrng Income of Rs 5 OOOI- per month Before the Tribunal no cogent and reitable evrdence was i Ied by the claimants to establish the Income of the deceased to the , extent of Rs.5,000/— per month. We, therefore, do not- find any inhrmity in'the assessment of the income of the deceased. by the Tribunal atRs.3,000/— per month and Rs.36,000/—'per annum. 12) The Vclaimants’ dependency also has been rightly assessed ’ by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, as basically only claimant No.1 Smt Parvati Bai’and claimant No.2 Ajay were dependent on the deceased and claimants No 4 to 8 are dependent on claimant No 3 Juthelal father of the deceased _ 13) The claimants cannot have any legitimate grievanceabout the selection of multiplier of 18 by the Tribunal as it is the highest § multiplierprescribed in‘the Second Schedule. * Sd/- . 14) For' the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for interference? in the appeat. The appeal, therefore, is liable to he dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 15) , / Ngorder as to costs. " 4w», N.K. AGARWAL Judge /\ / / Sd/- '> /:Chief Justice _ i hf/