"> c .,</ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) Dsvision Bgnch M.A. fC) No. 11^^ Of 2008. APPELLANTS :- NON-APPLICANTS N0.1 & 2 1. 9^ .^'-}rl°''^^-y^r ^^T^^"""" r.y'^'y- - -.•;.".»- ®a' Ganesh Kumar Ranade, son of Shri Kondalal Ranade, aged about 27 years, Resident ofVillage Dauji, Police Station Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) Present resident ofVillage Guma, Post Office Tendua, Police Station Urla, Rawabhata, Raipur (C.G.) (Driver), Ashok Kumar Lahre, son of Mohan Lahre, resident of Village Guma, Rawabhata, Police Station Uria, Post Office Tenduwa, Raipur (C.G.), (Owner ofthe Vehicle). VERSUS RESPONDENTS :- 1 ^ <k Smt. Maya Singh, aged 32 years, Wife ofLate Shri Ramakant Smgh, Minor Amit Kumar Singh, aged 8 years, son of Late Shri Ramakant Singh, Through his natural guardian mother Smt. Maya Singh, wife of Late Shri Ramakant Singh, ?)fc ^- Resident of Village Naghar, Police Station Rasda, District Balia (U.P.), Present resident of Through, House of Prem Shanker, Main Road Sarora, Thana-Police Thana Uria, District Raipur (Chattisgarh), CLAIMANTS 3. Bajaj Allianze Insurance Company Limited, In front of Employment Office, Pandari, Raipur (C.G.), (Insurer) Policy No. C.G.-08/2303-1802- 00003144, validity from 15.06.2007 to 14.06.2008. NON-APPLICANT N0. 3 APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. Z£3l. s. 'i^ ^ 1 %,.tl, '^S^ff'Z^'- V^iiSt^f <-> ' ~? HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVSSION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ. I.A. Fcl No. 1139/2( AppelSants Non-applicants No. Ganesh Kumar Ranade and another Smt. Maya Singh and others Present: r. HB Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Shivendu Pandya, counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. SS Rajput, Advocate for respondent No.S/insurance company. ORDER (OralS (25th July, 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/owner against the award of the 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Raipur (in short "the Tribunal"), dated 7.5.2008 passed in Claim Case No.4/08, insofar as it has fastened the liability to pay compensation upon the appellant/owner, exonerating the insurance company. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.8.2007 deceased Ramakant Singh was returning on bicycle from Bajrang Power Plant, Borjhara Khar, Urla, Raipur to his home at Sarora after doing his duties. At that time, appellant No.1, who was coming from Uria side, by drivins the motorcycle Honda Unicorn bearing registration No. CG 04/CU 8932 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle") rashly and negligentiy, dashed the bicycle of Ramakant, as a resurt of which Ramakant sustained grievous injuries over his head, face and ches.t. He was admitted in MMI Hospital, Raipur for treatment where he died on 1,9.2007 during treatment. Report of the accident was lodged a{ Poiice Station : Urla, Distt. Raspur, whereupon Cr.No.162/07 for the offence punishabie under Sections 279, 337 & 7^—.—-?7S^-^ ^ -^ /?' '^. '^. >•:•: *: '<• •-Ws^ ,' .y .; ^•:^"f^ s 304A of the IPC was registered. Aft charae sheet was filed before the completion of investigation, Court. 3. At the time of accident, the deceased was 37 years and was getting a salary of Rs.5000/- by working as Supervisor in Bajrang Steel Ltd. He was the only earning member in his family. Respondent No.1 is widow of the deceased and respondent No.2 is minor son of the deceased. With fhe aforesaid averments, respondents No. 1 & 2, being legal heirs of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act, 1988") before the Tribunal for a total compensation of Ss.16,30,000/- against the death of Ramakant Singh under various 4. Heard iearned counsel for the parties, perused the lower Court record (LCR$ as aiso the impugned award. 5. From perusal of the LCR, we found that the driver of the offending vehicte was not having a vaiid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. He was granted iearning iicence to drive the motorcycie only on 5.9.2007, whereas the accident had taken place much prior to that date i.e. on 25.8.2007. Therefore, it is clear that there was breach of insurance policy conditions and as such, the insurance company has rightly been exonerated from its liability by • Tribunal 6. Learned counsei for the appellants has aiso raised the question of luantum. 7. Having gone through the impugned award, we found that the monthly income of the deceased has been assessed at Rs.3,000/- per month, which is minimum. Therefore, annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.36,000/-. After deducting 1/3r!i, the totat dependency comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum. Since age of the deceased at the time of accident has been assessed as 45 years by the Tribunal, therefore, foliowing the law laid down in Sarta Verma (Smt.) Vs. De!hi Transport Corporation and another, reported in ^g 6 SCC 121, the multiplier of 14 would be applicabie. However, the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 13 only. Hence, no case for interference is made out in respect of quantum also. !n the result, the appeal faiis and is hereby dismissed. order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge G.Minha}]udin Judge ¥f