mSi&HC^Ett^KKiKCQUK^ Cte CHHJ^m^y^H ME, m^SB^XS. M.A.(C) No. i\Z£^. OF '201O |n'^ ^i^W yygpEj&VAyLiEB^.B&a^M^soQi-^ APREAL UNDER SEC'HQN 173 OF THE MQTQRVEHIC^ESM^ Appmjyy^r <NQN-APPLICANT N0.3) ^^•^ ...-:€^^ .....^ ^•^^s":;^ ^^,'-.:..--"'£ '^"" RESPONDENTS (APPLICANTNO.l) ^ (APPUCANT N0.2) :2. N^fcic^ial loaiiiraiice C<mQ^pai]^ IJiaiited^lliTOiigh: Its Divisional Maiiager^ Dwi^€i^ial-Qffi€»^B-ly Talia Complex, Ring Road-1, Pri^adar^iiEii Na^r^ Bilaspur,T&]i. & Distt-Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RamahaiMira. Rsm^ S^O-Shri Maziff-SL Ram, caste-Uraw, A^d-42 ^ears^ occupaticmi^ Dn^^/Farm^r. Smt. PcK>iiam P^ari, W/O-Shri Ramchaxidra. Sam., caste-Uraw, A^d-39 yeara^ GNScupatic^i.- IIou^e WM^., Both are R/o-ViUage-Hazari Toli, Post- Bada JCoraaja, Tah. 8& Distt^Jashgur (C.G.I (NON-APPLICANT Nol) j:3< Bir Kumari Toppo, D/0-paskal T&^g^ RjfO-ViUage Si^-m^ Post-Maiyha, P-S.jRaydih, DAstfc.^pli^kLband||. (NON-APPLICANT Noa) ;4. Prasad TirJd, S/0-Budfawa Trcki^ Aged-22 jears, occupation.-Driyer^ R/0- Vfflage-Hazari TciAi^ Post-B^da KoranjsL, Tali. & Disst- Jashpur (C.G). ^^ 5^ ^\ HIGK COURT GF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (Cl HO. 1126 OP 2010 APPBLLAHT/ fNON- APPLICANT N0.31 RESPGNDENTS Nalioual iu^uraiice Coxupaiiy i^iTiiter1. Versiss Ramctiaiidra Ram aiid otliers. APPEAL UHDBR SECTIGN 173 OF BSOTOR VEHICLBS ACT.1988 D.B.; Hoa'bie Shri I.M. Quddusi & Hos'Ue Shrl G. Miaha|uddin, JJ. Presesit: Shn Dashrath Gupta, counsel fe>r fhe appellaxit, Shii Rosliaii Vcrma, couuscl for thc rcspoxidcats No. 1 6& 2. ORAL ORBBR IPassed oa 08th day ofNovember, 20111 Per I.M. Guddusi,J. This appeal lias beeii fiied by the appellaiit/iiisuraiice Compaiiy agauist flie iiiipugiied awaixl dated 22-06-2010 passecl by tue Addltbnal Motor Accldent Claiois Tiibunal Jashpur, District Jaslipur (for short 'fhe Claiois Tnbunal") m. Claioi Casc No.36/2006, iii so fai" as it relates to fasteniag tlie Mabllity on the appellaiif/ InstU'aiice Coiiipaiiy to pay coBipensation to fiie clalmaats. 2. The appellaut/iD.siiTaD.ee Coiiipauy was grao-ted per.mlssiofi by th.e Claims Tribunal under Sectbn 170 of fhe Motor Veliicles Act (for short 'the Act") to contest tlie aiatter 011 aU couiits* .3. s Brief facts of fhe case, as per versioii of the respontleiits/claimaiits ai'e fliat oa 10-01-2006, Rakesh Kumai'- was worklng as assistaat dnver-cum-Maldoor 011 tlie Tractor 'beai-liig reglsti-ation No, J.H. 07-B/2565. He was eiigaged ±br loadlug Mtiram (saiid) at Jampat. Noii-applicao.t/respoiideiit No.4 hereiii aiid Rakesh Ktiiiim' were drivirig tlie sald Tractor tiu-n by tiirn. On tlie date of accident at about 12-00 to 1-00 p.iu.., wlien Rakesli Kuiiiai' was staiidiiig iieai tlie wall belimd flie Murfciiii mines, re^porident No,4 driviiig tlie said Tractor with t&'olley^ ^ wifhxjut giviag honi or liidlcatioa;, ia negli^irfc iiiaojier, has dashed Ralcesh 'Kumar'. iii tlie aiccident, Rakesh. Kumai" craslied between fhe wall and flie trolley, as a result of which Rakesli Kuiiiar- sustaliied grievous Mijury iii his heart aiid wifliia aii hour, he died. Non-appllcaiit/respondent No.3 (Bir Kumari Toppo) was flie owiiei arid tiie appellaiit/noii-applicao.t No.3 was i£isurer of tlie offendmg vehicle (Tractor), At Uie time ofaccident, fhe age of tiie deceased Rakesh Kuiiiai- was 20 years and was earnmg Rs.4000/- per monfh by doiag work as tractor driver ao.d as a dally wager, £t. The clalm.aiits beiiig legal lieirs of tlie deceased filed a petition under Sectioii 166 of fhe Act, before flie Clalms Tribuiial claimiag a total compeiisatloB. of Rs,33,20,000/- for tlie deafli of tlie deceased. S. Learned Clalms Tribunai 011 a close scrutiay ofevideiice led, iiiaterial placed aiid subiuissions aiade by fhe parties, has awarded a total aniount ofRs,3,74,500/~ against the respOAidents^ iucluclmg appeUaiit/Iiisuraace Compaay, jomtly and sever^ly along wifh. interest @ 4% per aiinum. froiu fhe date of applicatlou till its paym.ent, 6. We have pernsed fhe impugiied award passed by tlie Claiois Tiibuiial as well as the reeord. 7. Learned counsel for fh.e appellaiit lias iirged that it was a faiiiiers' package policy aad tliere was breach of ooriditlons of iiisurao.ee policy butwe have perused the registi'atioii certiflcate of tlie tractor aad tlie trolley. Botli were registered as coiiimercial vehicles aiid, flierefbre, ftiere was no questioii of providiiig insuraiice pollcy as Kisaa Package policy. it was the cluty of tiie Irisurance Conipariy to provide fhe lu.szu'ance poUcy accordiiig to flie registratlon certi&cate and It caniiot be sald fhat tliere was breacli of conditions of la.surau.ee policy wtdcli was a coiiipulsoiy policy under Sectioxi 147 of fhe Motor Veliicles Act. Therefoi-e, fliis poiiit ia not sustaiiiable lii the law. 8. It is evident tliat leamed Claims Tribuiial has assessed tlie m.oritiily iaeome of flie-deceased as Rs.3000/- forworkiiig 30 days iii a month Le. Rs.100/- per day. In our opiiiioa, iiecessaiily tiie 1cr. deceased would not have been workiiig for aU the 30 days aiid tlierefore, tlie Clakus Trlbuiial should Iiave reduced the daily iiicoiiie for five days, tliereby assessiiig the monfhly incoiue of Rs. Rs,2500/-. As tlie deceased was aged about 20 years aad he was bachelor, tlie Clamis Tribunal should have deducted halfi^e % of tiie income oftlie deceased^ iiistead ofone fliii'd Le. 1/3. Furtlier, lookirig to the average age offlie pai'eiits offhe deceased Le. 42 + 39 == 40.5 (41 yeai's), foUowiiig HoiAle Supreme Court iii the matter of Sarla Vcnna-(Sfnt,) -^B- Dclhi CQrp^ratiwi reported 111 (2009^ 6 SCC t21^ tlie iiiultlplier of 14 should have been appliecl. Therelbre, we award a s-am of Rs.2,10,000/- (2500 X 12/2 X 14). Besides this, tlie clsdiu.aiits woulcl be eutitled to get Rs. 10,000/~ for loss ofestate as fliey have lost a young boy aad Rs.5000/- for fuiieral expenses. As such tlie total aiiiount would come to Rs.2,25,000/-. Furfh.er, tlie claim.auts would be entitled to simple Miterest @ 6% per aiiiiuiii froiu tlie date offiliiig Uie claiin petitlon tiB the paynieat is made. The couusels" fee as fixed by fh-e learned Claims Tribunal Rs,1500/~ sliall remaiii latact The amouiit of awaixl is modified to the above extent. 9.. In view of the abdve., tiie appeal is allowed •to th.e above extent. No order as to costs, Kvr Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge