HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gypta. C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. M.A.(C) No. 451 of 2006 <_.- The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Richa Singh & others (And connected M.A.(C) No. 488 of2006) JUDGMENT ^. HON'BLESHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA 3 ^ For consideration 1 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- ChiefJustice Post for Judgment :2.6/03/2010 1 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gupta. C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar SlnhaLJ. APPELLANT RESPONDENTS M.A.(C)No. 451 of 2006 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, D.0. 2 Chawla Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, Sai Nagar Raipur(C.G.) (Non-Applicant No.3) Vfersi/s Smt. Richa Singh W/o Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, aged about 26 years, R/o Anand Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Sanjivnee D/o Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, aged about 9 months (Minor while Smt. Richa Singh who is mother of appellant No.2 is. their caretaker also)" (Claimants) Ramashankar Tripathi S/o Shri J.P. Tripathi, R/o 39A, Rohitvila, Vallabh Colony Ring Road No.1 Pachpedi Naka Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Owner of vehicle Mahindra Scorpio bearing no. C.G. 04/C.C./4455) Babulal S/o Shri Laxmi Baghel, aged about 35 years, R/o Kondagaon, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) (Driver of vehicle Mahindra Scorpio bearing no. C.G. 04/C.C./4455) Smt. Champa Singh W/o Shri R.P. Singh, aged about 55 years, R/o Plot No. 210/1/Anandpur, Ashirwad Vatika Pahadiya, Varanasi, Distt. Varanasi (U.P.) (Mother of the deceased-Rajesh KumarSingh) Rajendra Prasad S/o Unknown, aged about 60 years, R/o Plot No.210/1/Anandpur, Ashirwad Vatika Pahadiya, Varanasi, Distt. Varanasi (U.P.) (Father of deceased- Rajesh Kumar Singh) And APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS M.A.CQ Nos. 451 of2006 & 488 of2006 M.A.(C) No. 488 of 2006 1. Smt. Richa SinghAged about 32 years W/o Late Rajesh Kumar Singh 2. Miss Sanjivani Aged about 9 months, D/o Late Rajesh Kumar Singh 43,Anand Nagar Raipur Presently Resident of 40, Motilal Nehru Nagar, Bhilai Versus 1. Ramashanker Tripathi S/o J.P; Tripathi, R/o 39 A, Rohitvila, Vallabh Colony, Ring Road no.1, Pachpedi Naka Raipur 2. Babulal S/o Laxmi Baghel, Aged 35 years, R/o Kondagaon, District Bastar 3. The Oriental Insurance Company D.0. Chawla Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, Sai Nagar Raipur 4. Smt. Champa Singh W/o Shri R.P. Singh, Aged 55 years, R/o Plot No. 210/1/Anandpur, Ashirwad Vatika, Pahadiya, Varanasi (U.P.) 5. Shri R.P. Singh S/o not known, aged 60 years, R/o Plot No.210/1/Anandpur, Ashirwad Vatika, Pahadiya, Varanasi (U.P.) MISC. APPEALS UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Appearance: Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari & Mrs. Sima Sharm, Advocates for the claimants. Mr. Manish Upadhyaya, Advocate for the Insurance Company. None forthe owner, driver and other respondents. JUDGMENT (Z6.03.2010) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) These appe'als have been filed against the award dated 11.8.2006 passed in Claim Case No. 223/2005 by the Tenth Additional Motor Accident Clajms Tribunal (FTC) Durg, Chhattisgarh. M.A.CC) Nos. 451 of 2006 & 488 of 2006 (2) M.A.(C) No. 451/2006 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging its liability and quantum, whereas, M.A.(C) No. 488/2006 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation. ^ 1. (3) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- The claimants, unfortunate widow and minor child of deceased-Rajesh Kumar Singh, filed a Claim Petition u/s 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,01,16,400/- on account of his death in the motor accident which took place on 4.6.2005, when Mahindra Scorpio bearing registration No. CG- 04/C.C./4455, in which the deceased was an occupant, met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the said vehicte by its driver. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was aged about 27 years and was earning Rs.20,652/- per month. The driver and the owner of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte. The Insurance Company filed its written statement and denied its liability on the ground that the said vehicle was insured as a private vehicle, whereas it was being used as a taxi at the time of the accident. The other respondents i.e. parents of the deceased also remained ex-parte. The Insurance Company was granted permission u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contest the claim on all possible defences. The learned Claims Tribunal held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver^ and the owner, driver and insurer were jointly and M.A/C) Nos. 451 of 2006 & 488 of 2006 ^ severally liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,400/-. The annual income was assessed as Rs. 76,800/-. After deducting 1/3 towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the annual dependency was worked out to Rs.51,200/-. By applying multiplier of 18 to the said annual dependency of Rs.51,200/-, the compensation was worked out to Rs.9,21,600/-. By adding further sum of Rs.25,000/- under other heads, the total amount of compensation was worked out to Rs.9,46,600/-. Out of the said amount of' Rs.9,46,600/-, Rs.1,00,000/- was directed to be paid to the parents of the deceased and remaining amount of Rs.8,46,600/- was directed to be paid to the claimants. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of6% per annum from the date offiling ofthe Claim Petition till realization. (4) Though a ground in the appeal was taken by the Insurance Company that the risk of the occupant of the vehicle was not covered under the insurance policy, but Mr. Manish Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, very fairly submitted that he is not pressing this ground on account of recent circular dated 25.11.2009 of the Head Office, New Delhi as the vehicle was insured under Motor Package Policy also called as Comprehensive Policy. Circular dated 25th November 2009 issued by the Head Office of the Insurance Company reads as under:- "THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., HEAD OFFICE NEW DELHI DEPTT.: MOTOR Dated 25th November 2009 CIRCULAR N0. HO/MOT(U/W)/282/2008-09/CR-6473 CIRCULAR TO ALL BOs/Dos/ROs, I.A.D, VIGILANCE DEPTT., IT DEPTT. OSTC, ALL DEPTTS. OF H.O. & C.M.D'S SECTT./SERVICE CENTRE AT HANSALAYA & HYDERABAD ^ ^;^.. ^lllhr'- M.A.CC) Nos. 451 of 2006 & 488 of2006 ^^ LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANIES IN RESPECT OF OCCUPANT OF A PRIVATE CAR AND PILLION RIDER IN A TWO WHEELER UNDER STANDARD MOTOR PACKAGE POLICY (ALSO CALLED COMPREHENSIVE POLICY) We have received Circular No.lRDA/NL/CIR/F&U/ 073/11/2009 dt. 16.11.09 from IRDA whereby it is confirmed that insured's liability in respect of occupant carried in a Private Car and Pillion Rider carried on 2-wheeler is covered under the Standard Motor Package Policy. IRDA has further confirmed that vide various Circulars issued after detariff of Motor, there has been no change in the scope of the standard covers. A copy of the Circular is en,closed for record & ready reference. The terms of the cover as per the Motor Package Policy for Private Cars and 2-wheeler as given in Policy wording Section 2.1(i) are very clear and are reconfirmed by the IRDA's Circular. It is, therefore, advised to immediately review all cases where appeal has been fited on the grounds that Insurer is not liable for occupants of Private Cars and Pillion Rider in a 2-wheeler under the Motor Package Policy. If the appeal is based solely on these grounds then it must be immediately withdrawn. If there are other grounds for filing appeal then the case must be examined on merits and decision regarding continuation of appeal be taken by the Regional Manager concerned. Lastly, it must be ensured that our offices desist from filing appeals on the grounds of Pillion Rider or occupants of Private Car not being covered under Motor Package Policies. Kindly acknowledge receipt and confirm action taken regarding appeal cases to Head Office Motor Department. Sd/- N.K. SINGH GENERAL MANAGER Encl: As above. (5) Admittedly, the policy of the vehicle was a Package Policy (Comprehensive Policy) and the deceased was the occupant of the vehicle. Therefore, in tight of the contents of the above circutar, now this ground is not available to the Insurance Company, even though no extra premium was paid by the owner for covering the risk of the occupant of the vehicle. "Y -^ { M.A.rC) Nos. 451 of 2006 & 488 of 2006 (6) Mr. Manish Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, argued that the vehicle was being used as a taxi, whereas, it was insured as a private vehicle. (7) We do not find any force in such argument advanced by learned counsel for the Insurance Company. There is no iota of evidence to show that the said vehicle was being used as a taxi or the owner has used the vehicle for commercial purpose. (8) Now we shall consider about the quantum of compensation. (9) Mr. Manish Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, has argued that the income was not properly assessed and a very high compensation has been awarded to the claimants. On the contrary, Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants, opposed these arguments and submitted that the income of the deceased has been assessed on the lower side and a low compensation has been awarded. (10) We find that the income of the deceased has been assessed on the basis of salary certificate (Ex.-P/11) filed by the claimants. In the said certificate, the gross salary of the deceased has been shown as Rs.11,712/-. Out of this, Rs.3,200/- is the house rent allowance (HRA); Rs.1,600/- is the conveyance allowance; and Rs.512/- is the supplementary allowance. Admittedly, these amounts would not be taken into account for assessing the income of the deceased. The Tribunalhas deducted these amounts and has assessed that the deceased was earning Rs.6,400/- per month and Rs.76,800/- per annum. We do not find ^< ^^•- ^^ M.A.fQ Nos.451 of 2006 & 488 of2006 any illegality in such assessment made by the Tribunal. The assessment made by the Tribunal is based on salary certificate produced by the claimants themselves. ^ (11) The Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3 towards the personal expenses of the deceased as the deceased was married and he was having a minor child and parents. This was in line with the dictum of the Apex Court rendered in the matter of Sved Basheer Ahamed and Others -Vs- Mohammed Jameel and Another. (2009) 2 SCC 225, in which, it was held that the general rule regarding deduction from the income of the deceased is 50%, if he is bachelor and one-third if he is married. (12) The Tribunal has used the highest multiplier of 18. Therefore, the claimants should not have any grievance on this account also. The Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding Rs.25,000/- under the other heads which is also on the higher side. Therefore in any case, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has assessed a low compensation on account of death of deceased-Rajesh Kumar Singh in the motor accident. The interest awarded by the Tribunal is also at the usual rates of 6% per annum. Therefore, we do not find any scope to interfere with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. (13) Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel for the claimants, has not questioned the apportionment made by the Claims Tribunal. (14) No other ground was raised before us by either party. \,^^ vatti M.A/Q Nos. 451 of 2006 & 488 of 2006 (15) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for interference in these appeals filed against the award dated 11.8.2006 passed bythe Claims Tribunal. (16) The appeals are liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. (17) No order as to the cost(s). Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge