BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (c.G.) ,r : k 5, ‘ MO M.A. C NO. 2008 41w APPELLANTS : 1 Santosh Kumar Gupta SA chcha Defendants Prasad Gupta (Owner), /o Vlllage Kurludih, Post Sanawal Distt. Surguja (C.G.). . Jagdhari Pamka, abMJ‘ S/o K Vert- Bansraj (Driver),/\l3’/\o Vlllage Vlmlapur Dmdo, Tahsil Wadrufnagar, Distt. Surguja (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1.- Hardev, S/o Ramawtar, aged about (No. 1 to 6 Claimants 55 years, Before Learned C!aim 2. Indraman, W/O Hardev, aged about Tribunal, No. 7 Defendant) 50 years, 3. Sumitra, Wd/o Shambhu Thakur, aged about 25 years, 4. Uday, S/O Shambhu Thakur, aged about 12 years, 5. Kiran, D/O Shambhu Thakur, aged about 10 years, 6. Chhotu, S/o Shambhu Thakur, aged about 2 yearsJ Respondent no. 4 to 6 minor through natural guardian mother Sumitra Wd/o Shambhu Prasad S/o Hardev Prasad, All R/o Village Chera, P.S. Basantpur, present Address Village Sondiha, C/o Laxmi Prasad Thakur, Tahsil Pratappur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.). y 7. The Oriental Insurance Company W Limited Branch Office Ambikapur Distt. Surguja (C.G.). HI$H COURT OF CHHATTIS$ARH AT EELASF’UR DIVISION BENCH: HON'éLE MR. I.M.QUD§U5I & HON'BLE MR’.GULAM MINHAJUDDIN J'J M A [C] No.1370/2008 Appeilan‘rs Samosh Kumar Gup'ra & anofher' Vs Respondents Hardev & others Presen‘f: Mr. Sunii Tripa‘rhi, AdvocaTe for fhe appellanfs. Mr. J.A. Lohani, Advoca‘re for fhe respondenf No.1 To 6. Mr. Sudhir Agarwal, Advocafe for fhe raspondenf No.7. ORDER (amt) (18* My, 2011) I.M. Quddusg J: 1. Heard. 2. The appeilanfs-owner 6x driver of The offending vehicie, havefiled This appeal agninsf The award dated 31.7.2008 passed in C‘aim Case No.63/07 whereby fhe Iearned Addi‘rionm Mo1'or' Accidem‘ Claims Tribunai, FTC, Pmfappur, Disfricf Sarguja (C6) (for short ‘The Ciaims Tribunal’). 3. The claimanfs have also filed a cross-objecfion for enhancemenf of fhe amoum of compensa‘tion. 4. Brief facts of The case are Tha‘r on 24.3.2007 deceased Shambhu Prasad was going Towards Kudar'garh Mekx in a pick-up van bearing registrafion number UP64~E—6334, however, on The way The said pick-van has mef wim an accidem as a result he Sus'rained grievous injuries and died. The claimams, who are pareni‘s, widow d children of ihe deceased, have filed claim peiifion seeking compensa'fion 'l’o the iune of Rs.9’51.832/- on The ground Thai ‘l‘hey were dependenT on fhe deceased, who was sole earning member in the famiiy, and due To deaTh of The deceased They have suffered loss of income. 5. The Claims Tribunal, on The basis of pleadings of The par-Ties, framed as many as nine issues and afTer hearing The parTies in The maTTer allowed ciaim peTiTion of The claimanTs, awarded a sum of Rs.4,94,193/— along wiTh inTer-esT @ 7.5% p.a. and saddled The appellanTs herein wiTh The liabiii‘iy To safisfy The award on The ground fhaf The vehicie was plied in breach of condi‘rions of insurance policy. v 6. Learned counsel for The appeNanT has submiTTed ThaT aT The Time of accidenT The driver was holding valid and effecTive licence To drive The said vehicle, however, The Claims Tribunal has wrongly held ThaT There‘was breach of condiTions of insurance policy. He has further submiT‘red ThaT meThod adopTed by The Claims Tribunal To assess amounT of compensaTion is defecfive as The Claims Tribunal has no‘r followed The law laid down by The Hon‘ble Supreme CourT in This regard. 7. On The oTher hand, learned counsel for The respondenTs have supporTed The impugned award. 8. We have heard learned counsel for The parTies and perused The impugned award as also The record of The Claims Tribunal. l 9. So far as The fir-3T argumenT of learned counsel for The appellanTs is concerned, The offending vehicle involved in The insTanT case is a commercial Transpor‘r vehicle. Perusal of copy of driving licence filed by driver of offending vehicle namely Jagdhari reveals ThaT he was only auThorized To drive Lighf MoTor Vehicles for a period of 20 years i.e. from 13.10.2004 To 12.10.2024 and in The said licence There was no endorsemenT auThorizing him To drive The commercial TransporT vehicle. Thus, iT is clear ThaT licence issued To The driver of offending vehicle was for The purpose of a vehicle oTher Than a TransporT vehicle as had iT been granTed for TransporT vehicle, The Tenure Thereof could noT have exceeded To Three years, as per SecTion 14 (2) (a) of The AcT, 1988. Therefore, as The driver had no licence To drive commercial TransporT vehicle, in absence of necessary endorsemenT in his licence To ThaT effect he could noT have driven The said vehicle and accordingly, we are of The opinion ThaT The Claims Tribunal has noT commiTTed any illegaliTy or infirmiTy in exoneraTing The Insurance Company. 10. So far as The quanTum parT of The impugned award is concerned, on perusal of The impugned award we found ThaT mulTiplier applied by The Claims Tribunal is noT as per The law laid down by The Hon‘ble Supreme CourT in The maTTer of Sérla Vermd (SmTL'i and oThers vs; Delhi NL$ ~ Tmnsporf Corpora‘l'ian & anofher- reporfed in (2009) 6 5C6 121, as according f0 This judgmen? where ‘the deceased is between The age group of 25-30 years, muH'iplier of 17 would be applicable. Fur’rher': The sums awarded by me Claims TribLmnI under ofher ndmissibie heads are aiso no? in accordance wifh law and me same requires re—considerafion. Thus, The impugned award is required To be modified in fhe above ‘rerms. 11. In view of The above, if we apply muifiplier of 17 To me loss of income assessed by The Claims Tribunal i.e. Rs.24,000/—, me tofal loss of dependency would come 'ro Rs.4,08,000/—. Besides this, 1he claimams are also enii‘rled for Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consorfium, Rs.5,000/— Towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- iowards loss of esl’afe. & Rs.10,000/- Towards loss of love and affecfion. They are also en'ri‘l'led for Rs.39,693-/ *owards medical expenses, as awarded by The Claims Tribunal. Thus, The ToTal compensaTion for which The claimanTs are now enTiTled is Rs.4,72 ,693/-. 12. In The resulT, The appeal is allowed in parT and The impugned award is modify To The exTenT ThaT now The claimanTs shall be enTiTled for Rs.4,72,693/- as compensaTion in place of Rs.4,94,193/~ as awarded by The Claims Tribunal. They shall also be enTiTled for Simple InTeresT C‘? 7.5% pa. on» The awarded amounT from The daTe of filing of applicaTion Till acTual paymenT is made. ResT of The condiTions imposed by The Claims Tribunal shall remain inTacT. 13. The appeal is allowed To The exTenT indicaTed above. No order as To cosTs. CerTified copy as per rules. Sd/- Q. Minhajuddin Judge Roshun/- Sdl— I.M.Quddusi Judge (fl