HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal No. 407 of 2006 APPELLANTS Claimants RESPONDENTS APPELLANT Claimant RESPONDENTS 1. Rupesh Kumar S/o Preetam Sahu, aged 3 years. 2. Deepak Kumar S/o Preetam Sahu, aged 1 years and 6 months. Both being minorrepresented by guardian mother Anita Bai widow of Preetam Sahu, agedabout 22 years. 3. Anita Bai Widow of Preetam Sahu, aged 22 years, occupation house wife. 4. Basmatiya Bai widow of Bodhan Sahu, aged about 50 years, occupation nothing. All R/oMohad, Post- Sijhora, PS, Tahsil Bichhiya, District Mandala (MP) Presently resided at Kailash Nagar, Ward No. 2, Kawardha, District Kabeerdham (CG). VERSUS 1. Balram Singh Rajput, S/o Ram Singh, aged 48 yeare.occupation, Driver, R/o PashchimiKariyapathar, Ward No. 27, Radhakrishna Baag Police Station Hanuman Tal, Tahsil & District Jabalpur (MP). 2. Mohd. Shafiq S/o Mohd. Sageer, aged 40 years, occupation vehicle owner, R/o J. 109 Anand Nagar, Jabalpur, Tahsil& DistrictJabalpur(MP). 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Nagar Shakha No. 5, Gole Bazaar, Jabalpur, Tahsil District Jabalpur (MP). Misc. Appeal No. 408 of 2006 Rajesh S/o Ramdas Panka, aged 24 years, occupation Labourer, R/o Mohgaon, Post, Block, Police Station Sub Tahsil Mawai, District Mandala (MP) Presently resided at Kailash Nagar, Ward No. 2, Kawardha, District Kabeerdham . (CG). VERSUS 1. Balram Singh Rajput, S/o Ram Singh, aged 48 years, occupation, Driver, R/'o -\-^ Pashchimi Kariyapgthar, Ward No. 27, Radhakrishna Baa'g Police Station Hanuman Tal, Tahsil & District Jabalpur (MP). 2. Mohd. Shafiq S/o Mohd. Sageer, aged 40 years, occupation vehicle owner, R/o J. 109 Anand Nagar, Jabalpur, Tahsil & District Jabalpur (MP). 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Nagar Shakha No. 5, Gole Bazaar, Jabalpur, Tahsil District Jabalpur (MP). Misc. Appeal No. 409 of 2006 APPELLANTS Clahnants RESPONDENTS 1. Sonwati D/o Nawal Singh, aged ,12 years. 2, Ishwar Singh S/o Nawal Singh, aged 8 years. Both are minor represented though guardian mother Gangawati widow of Nawal Singh by caste Gond, aged about 29 years, R/o Mohgaon. 3. Gangawati Wd/o Nawal Singh Gond, aged about 29 years, occupation Labourer, All resident of village Mohgaon, Post, PS Block, Sub Tahsit Mawai, District Mandata (MP). Presently resided at Kaitash Nagar, Ward No. 2, Kawardha, Distrtet Kabeerdham (CG). VERSUS 1. Balram Singh Rajput, S/o Ram Singh, aged 48 years, occupation, Driver, R/o Pashchimi l^riyapathar, Ward No. 27, Radhakrishna Baag Police Station Hanuman Tal, Tahsil & District Jabalpur (MP). 2. Mohd. Shafiq S/o Mohd. Sageer, aged 40 years, occupation vehicle owner, R/o J. 109 Anand Nagar, Jabatpur, Tahsil & District Jabalpur (MP). 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Nagar Shakha No. 5, Gole Bazaar, Jabalpur, Tahsil District Jabalpur (MP), APPELLANTS Clajmants RESPONDENTS Misc. Appeal No. 410 of 2006 1. Sita Bai D/o Bahadur Panka, aged about 10 years, occupation Student minor guardian father Bahadur, S/o Ajuram Panka, aged 30 years, R/o Mohgaon. 2. Bahadur, S/o Ajuram Panka, aged 30 years, occupation Labourer, R/o Mohgaon.Post, PS Block, Sub Tahsil Mawai, District Mandala (MP). Presently resicled at Kaitash Nagar, Ward No. 2, Kawardha, Tehsil Kawardha, District Kabeerdham (CG). VERSUS 1. Balram Singh Rajput, ,S/o Ram Singh, aged 48 years, occupation, Driver, R/o Pashchimi Kariyapathar, Ward No. 27, Radhakrishna Baag Police Station Hanuman Tal, Tahsil & District Jabalpur (MP). 2. Mohd. ShafiqS/o Mohd. Sageer, aged 40 years, occupation vehicle owner, R/o J. 109 Anand Nagar, Jabalpur, Tahsil & District Jabatpur (MP). 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Nagar Shakha No. 5, Gole Bazaar, Jabalpur, Tghsit District Jabalpur (MP). Misc. Appeal No. 411 of 2006 APPELLANTS Claimants 1. Ram Dulari Bai D/o Saligram Panka, aged 12years. 2. Anand Kumar S/o Saligram Panka, aged 09 years. 3. Ravindra Kumar S/o Saligram Panka, aged 5 years. All are being minor represented by guardian maternal grand father Ram Das S/o Gokul, aged about 50 yeare. 4. Ram Das S/o Gokul Panka, occupation labourer, aged 50 years. 5. Semo Bai W/o Ram Das Panka, aged about48years,occupation Labourer RESPONDENTS All resident of Mohga^n, Police Station, Block, Post, Sub Tahsil Mawai, Dlstrict Mandala (MP). Presently resided at Kailash Nagar, Ward No. 2, Kawardha, Tahsit Kawardha, District Kabeerdham (CG). VERSUS 1. Balram Singh Rajput, S/o Ram Singh, aged 48 years, occupation, Driver, R/o Pashchimi Kariyapathar, Ward No. 27, Radhakrishna Baag Police Station Hanuman Tal, Tahsil & District Jabalpur (MP). 2. Mohd. Shafiq S/o Mohd. Sageer, aged 40 years, occupation vehicle ovgier/ R/o J. 109-Anand Nagar, Jabalpur, Tahsil & District Jabalpur (MP). 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Nagar Shskha No. 5, Gole Bazaar, Jabalpur, Tahsil District Jabalpur(MP). Misc. Appeal No. 412 of 2006 APPELLANTS Claimants RESPONDENTS 1. Chaitram S/oJai Singh Baiga, aged 14 years occupation-Student, minor represented through mother Fagni 0ai Wklow of Jai Singh Baiga, aged about 29 years, r/o Village Mohgaon. 2. Fagni Bai Widow of Jai Singh Baiga, aged about 25 years, occupation Labourer. Both R/o Mohgaon, Post, Block, Police Station, Sub Tahsil Mawai, District Mandala (MP). Presently resided at Kaitash Nagar, Kawardha, Distrtet Kabeerdham (CG). VERSUS 1. Balram Singh Rajput, S/o Ram Singh, aged 48 years, occupation, Driver, R/o Pashchimi t^iriyapathar, Ward No. 27, Radhakrishna Baag Police Station Hanuman Tal, Tahsil & District Jabalpur (MP). 2. Mohd. Shafiq S/o Mohd. Sageer, aged 40 years, occupation vehlcle owner, R/o J. 109 Anand Nagar, Jabalpur, APPELLANTS Claimanfs RESPONDENTS Tahsil & District Jabalpur (MP). 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Nagar Shakha No. 5, Gole Bazaar, Jabalpur, Tahsil District Jabalpur (MP). Misc. Appeal No. 413 of 2006 1. Leela Bai D/o Munna Gond, aged 14 years. 2. Dhanti Bai S/o Munna Gond, aged 10 years. Both being minor represented by guardian maternal grand father Lal Singh S/o Chhotur, aged about 60 years, R/o Mohgaon. 3. Lal Slngh S/o Chhotur Gond, occupatlon Labourer, aged 60 years. All R/o Mohgaon, Potice Station, Block, Post, Sub Tahsil Mawai, Dlstrict Mandala (MP). Presentty resided at Kailash Nagar, Ward No. 2, Kawardha, District Kabeerdham (CG). VERSUS 1. Balram Singh Rajput, S/o Ram Singh, aged 48 years, occupation, Driver, R/o Pashchimi Kariyapathar, Ward No. 27, Radhakrishna Baag Police Station Hanuman Tal, Tahsil & District Jabalpur (MP). 2. Mohd. ShafiqS/o Mohd. Sageer,aged 40 years, occupation vehicle owner, R/o J. 109 Anand Nagar, Jabalpur, Tahsil & District Jabalpur (MP). 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, NagarShakha No. 5, Gote Bazaar, Jabalpur, Tahsil District Jabalpur (MP). & Misc. Aopeal No. 415 of 2006 APPELLANTS Claimants 1. Chande Lal S/o Munshi Panka, aged about 45 years, occupatlon Labourer. 2. Maanki Bai W/o Chande Lal, aged 43 years, occupation Labourer. ^^^B'w.^^^^K^aanaNua^^ ^iS^^^8ra^'®^i^^^^^^-!'Bn5»»i Bai-3.5^=M^'-"=»^' -^-i^^ RESPONDENTS Both R/o Mohgaon, Post, PS Block, Sub Tahsll Mawai, District Mandala (MP). Presently resided at Kaitash Nagar, Kawardha, Tahsil Kawardha, District (^ibeerdham (CG). VERSUS 1. Balram Singh Rajput, S/o Ram Singh, aged 48 years, occupation, Driver, R/o Pashchimi Kariyapathar, Ward No. 27, Radhakrishna Baag Police Station Hanuman Tal, Tahsil & District Jabalpur (MP). 2. Mohd. Shafiq S/o Mohd. Sageer, aged 40 years, occupation vehicle owner, R/o J. 109 Anand Nagar, Jabalpur, Tahsil & District Jabalpur (MP). 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Nagar Shakha No. 5, Gole Bazaar, Jabatpur, Tahsit District Jabalpur (MP). (APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT1 (DB: Hon'ble Mr. Raieev Gupta. CJ & Hon'ble ^4r. N.K. Aaarwal. J.l Present : Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate forthe appellants. Shri Ravt Bhagat, Advocate on behalf of Shri Praphant Jaiswal, Sr. Advocate for respondent No. 31 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Shri P. Dutta, Advocate for respondent No. 3 in MA No. 409/2006. ORDER (Delivered ons.C. /07/2011) Per: N.K. Aaanwal, J. 1. By thi&common award, Misc. Appeal Nos. 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413 & 415 of 2006 are being disposed of as the common facts & issues are involved in alt these appeals and are arise out of same accident. 2. Brief facts of the case are : The respondents were driver, owner and insurer of Truck bearing registration No. MP-17-C-2533 on ^ the date of accident i.e. 16.02.05. On that day, about 22-27 persons were traveling in above Truck. The said Truck turned turtle as a result of which Preetam Sahu, Maneesha Bai, Nawal Singh Gond, Kunti Bai, Saraswatl Bai, Jai Singh Baiga, Jamuni Bai and Kailash succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. The claimants in all the appeals are their legal representatives. 3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, material placed and submissions made by the parties, held : accident has occurreddue to rash and negllgence driving of the driver of offending Truck bearing registration No. MP-17-C-2533; deceased were sitting in the Truck in breach of policy conditions; exonerated the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation to the ctaimants; assessed and awarded Rs. 4,15,000/- in MAC No. 407/06 (claim case No. 8/05), Rs. 2,66,200/- in MAC No. 408/06 (claim case No. 9/05), Rs. 3.31,000/- in MAG No. 409/06 (claim case No. 10/05), Rs. 3,52,600/- in MAC No. 410/06 (claim case No. 11/05), Rs. 3,52,600/- in MAC No. 411/06 (claim case No. 12/05), Rs.3,14,200/- in MAC No. 412/06 (claim case No. 13/05), Rs. 2,95,000/- in MAC No. 413/06 (claimcase No. 14/05) and Rs. 2,56,600/- in MAC No. 415/06 (claim case No. 15/05) as compensation in Tavour of claimants against the owner and driver . - of offending Truck. 4. Shn Malay Kumar Bhaduri, leamed counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased; in selecting low QSBi.t.wieaxaaswmB^sxciiisi.-^sSixsssacsss multlpller, and in awarding compensation whjch is shockingly on lower side. It was further contended by Shri Bhaduri that leamed Tribunal went wrong in exonerating the respondert No 3/ Oriental Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation, inasmuch as, respondent No. 3/insurance company, by charging extra premium of Rs. 75/-; assumed the risk of gratuitous passengers sitting in the Truck. 5. On theother hand, Shri P. Dutta and Shri Ravi Bhagat, learned counsel appearing for respondent Np. 3/The Oriental Insurance Company Limited supported the award impugned and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal has rightly exonerated and awarded compensation after carefully examining the evidence in each case whteh is just and proper compensation. 6. We have heard the counset appearing for the parties, perused the award impugned and records ofthe Tribunal. 7. We sha!l first examine sufficiency or otherwise of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. , 8. In MAC No. 407/06, the Tribunal assessed monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 2500/- and claimants' monthly dependency at Rs. 2QOO/-, taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 25 years, applied muttiplier of 17 and awardect Rs. 4,08,000/- on account of loss of dependency and further awarded Rs. 7000/- on other heads, and thus, awarded total sum of Rs. 4,15,000/- as (°r< compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Preetam Sahu in the said accident. 9. In MACNo. 408/06, the Tribunal assessed monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 2400/- and claimants' monthly dependency at Rs. 1200/-, taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 24 years, applied multiplier of 18 and awarded Rs. 2,59,200/-on account of lossof dependency and further awarded Rs. 7000/- on other heads, and thus, awarded total sum of Rs 2,66,200/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Maneesha Bai in the said accident. 10. In MAC No. 409/06, the Tribunal assessed monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 2400/- and claimants' monthly dependency at Rs. 1800/-, taking into consideration the age of thedeceased as 35 years, applied multiplier of 15 and awarded Rs. 3,24,000/- on account of loss of dependency and further awarded Rs. 7000/- on other heads, and thus, awarded total sum of Rs. 3,31,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Nawal Singh Gond in the said accident. 11 In CTAC No. 41 0/06, the Tribunal assessed monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 24001- and claimants' monthly dependency at Rs. 1600/-, taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 24 years, applied multiplier of 18 and awarded Rs. 3,45,600/- on account of loss of dependency and further awarded Rs. 7000/- on other heads, and thus, awarded totat sum of Rs. 3,52,600/-as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Kunti Bai in the ^id accident. '.SiSES'.S^-^'t^SS 10 12. tn MAC No. 411/06, the Tribunal assessed rtionthly income of the deceased at Rs. 2400/- and claimants' monthly dependency at Rs. 1800/-, taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 28 years, applied multiplier of 16 and awarded Rs. 3,45,600/- on account of loss of dependency and Turther awarded Rs. 7000/- on other heads, and thus, awarded total sum of Rs. 3,52,600/-as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceaseu Saraswati Bai in the said accident. 13. In MAC No. 412/06, the Tribunal assessed monthly income ofthe deceased at Rs. 24001- and claimants' monthly dependency at Rs. 1600/-, taktng into consideration the age of the deceased as 30 yeare, applied multiplier of 16 and awarded Rs. 3,07,200/- on account of loss of dependency and further awarded Rs. 7000/- on other heads, and thus, awarded total sum of Rs. 3,14,200/-as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Jai Singh Baiga in the said accident. 14. In MAC No. 413/06, the Tribunal assessed monthly income ofthe deceased at Rs. 2400!- and claimants' monthly dependency at Rs. 1600/-, taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 35 years, applied multiptier of 15 and awarded Rs. 2,88,000/- on account of loss of dependency and further awarded Rs. 7000/- on other heads, and thus, awarded total sum of Rs. 2,95,000/-as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Jamuni Bai in the said accident, and 15. In MAC No. 415/06, the Tribunal assessed monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 2400/- and claimants' monthly dependency at Rs. 1600/-, taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 18 yeare, applied multiplier of 13 and awarded Rs. 2,49,600/- on account ofloss of dependency and further awarded Rs. 7000/- on other heads, and thus, awarded totat sum of Rs. 2,56,600/-as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Kailash in the said accident. 16. We have gone carefully through the entire evidence adduced in all the cases. The Tribunal after considering the evidence in its proper perspective has rightly assessed the income of deceased Further, in the light of dictum of Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & others v. Delhl Transport Corporation & another, claimants' dependency assessed and multiplier selected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. The Tribunal has also not committed any error in awarding compensation on other heads and in awarding interest on the amount of compensation @ 6 percent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual payment. Considering aboveaspects ofthe matter, we do not find any infirmity in the amount awarded by the Tribunal in all the claim cases. 17. The clajroants pleaded in all fhe cases that the deceased were sitting in the Truck as fare paying passenger. Statements of Jagat, Bahadur and Rajesh Kumar recorded in the claim cases would also reveal atl 22-27 persons were sitting in the Truck as fare paying passenger, that too in the Dala of the Truck. '2009 (6) SCC 121 12 Therefore, it is not much in dispute that deceased persons were sitting in the Truck as fare paying passengers 18. It is settled law that provisions of the MV Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of the vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger traveling in a goods carriage vehicle and the insurer would have no liabitlty therefor. However, an owner of a vehicle intends to cover himself from other risks; it is permissibte to enter into a contract of insurance in which event the insurer would be bound to reimburee the owner of the v6S;sle strictly in terms thereof. A contract of insurance which is not statutory in nature should be construed like any other contract. 19. We have nofced the terms of the contract of insurance. The policy issued in the case is package policy whteh covers the risk of third party, owner, non fare paying passengers and employee/ Driver, and for that purpose a total premium of Rs. 3905/- ftas been charged. The deceased were, indisputably, fare paying passengere. The contract of insurance did not cover the risk of fare paying passengers. 20. In the absence of any contract covering the risk of fare paying passengere, the insurance company cannot be held liable Tor payment of compensation to the ctaimants for the death of passengers sitting and traveling in the goods carriage vehicle as fare paying passengers, and the second question raised by Shri Bhaduri regarding liability of insurance company is also devoid of merit. 13 21. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, all the appeals being devoid of merit are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. 22. However, in the facts and circumstances of the cases, thereshall be no order asto costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- N.K-Agarwal Judge Sahu