INJ:HE HfGH COURT OF JUDICATURE. AT BJLASPUR M.A.C.No. l^-i^ /2007. APPELLANT : Ramesh Kumar Sahu, S/o Sa'ikram Sahu, NON-APPLICANT No.2 R/o Phooi Market, Mirapara, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). RESPONDENTS APPLICANTS VERSUS 1 -<s, Smt. Tesh Bai, Aged about 30 years; 2- Ku. Khomeshwari, D/o Dhaniram. Aged about.6 years (Deleated); 3-^- "Ku. Rupeshwari, Aged about 8 years; 4-, Dhaneshwar Kumar, aged about 4 years;; 5-5 Ku. Hara Bai, aged about1 year; 3~> 6-t Pawan Kumar Josh,!, S/o Late Shri Gangdeo Josh', aged about 60 years 7-^. Smt. Urmiia Bai, 'vV/o Pawan Kumar ~5 Joshi, aged about 55 year; Respono'ent No.-l Wife, -2 & 5 daughter & soris & 6 & 7 are father & mother of Late ' Dhar'iram Joshi (Respondent N0.2 to 5) miner. Through Gaurdian mother Smt. Tesh Bai (respondent No.1), All R/o Village Lakhanpur, P.S. Pithaura, Post-Jhalap, Tah. & Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) 8- Dushyant Patei, S/o Padum La! f Patei, aged about 29 years, R/o Dhaneti.; P.S. Dharsiwa, Tah. & Distt. RAipur (C.G.). 9- Branch Manager, ^^y'^Cv^- j^ Tne^OrientaiJnsuranceCo.Ltd.; - i..''S'll"t"<^:i;*^'v-"': ' Madina Biiiiding, Kachaharl Road, '^•'?%^^ Raipur.DisU. Raipur(C.G.) ^'^•^"' .-.-_-. ....-.„_-_-„---- -..._ -_'^.^ ' .•^^ APPEAL^JNDERSECTEPN')7SOCTHE ^-- MOTOR_VEHrcLEA0'.1S88 <" (against the award dated 01-09-2067 passed by ChiefAccidei'it ClaimsTribunal, MahasaiTsund in Clairn Case Na..32,'20Q7.) ^" \,. ^y^ HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A-CNo. 1413/2007 ^ APPELLANT Ramesh Kumar Sahu Versus RESPONDENTS Smt. Tesh Bai DB:- HQN'BLE SHRI I.M. QUDDUSI & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, JJ PRESENT:- Shri B.P. Gupta, Advocate, for appellant. Shri Shailendra Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No. 9. ORAL ORDER (26-11-2010) Per I.M. Quddusi, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/owner against the award dated 1-9-2007 passed by the Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund in Claim Case No. 32/2007. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 1-10-2006, the respondent No. 8/driver of the Matador bearing registration No. CG 04 G-1270 after loading Transformer in the said vehicle was going along with Mukesh Kum.ar Joshi and deceased Dhani Ram Joshi to village Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari. At about 7.00 p.m. the said vehicle met with an accident at village Bharda Basti due to rash and negligent driving of the driver'of the said truck. In the said accident Dhaniram Joshi sustained grievous injuries and died on spot. The claimants being legal heirs of the deceased filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (briefly th.e Act') claiming Rs. 34,47,OOO/- as compensation for the death of the deceased. 3. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,80,OOO/- to the claimants fastening the liability of payment of the same upon the ^. owner and driver, and exonerating the insurer from its liability. 4. Leamed counsel for the appeUant has raised frwo contentions before this Court, first regarding liability that the Tribunal has wrongly fuced the liability on the owner whereas it ought to have been of the Insurance Company. Second is regarding quantum. 5. Let us consider the first contention. 6. It has come in the evidence that the deceased was sitting inside the cabin of the matador carrying transformer as employee of the owner of the transformer. Therefore, the deceased was representative of the owner. There are compulsory requirements of the policy and limits of liability, given under Section 147 of the Act. Relevant part of Section 147 ofthe Act reads thus:- "147. Requireinents ofpolicies and Umits of liability. (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which- (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; or (b) insurer the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)- (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect^ of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. 7. Since the deceased was the authorized representative of the owner of the transformer and the vehicle was carrying the transformer, he was deputed. wifh the transformer by the owner and was sitting in the cabin, therefore, the insurance policy would cover the risk of the authorized representative ofthe owner ofthe goods i.e. the deceased. 8. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that learned Tribunal has committed error in fudng liability for payment of compensation upon the owner exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability. 9. At this stage, leamed counsel for the respondent No. 9/ Insurance Company submitted that the quantum fixed by the Tribunal is too excessive and this point has been raised by the appellants also. Therefore, on his request also, this Court may consider the quantum part. 10. In the instant case, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month, but we see no basis of that. We would assess monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum. The claimants are six in number therefore, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verina (Smt.l and others -v- Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, standard deduction towards personal expenses would be V*. Thus after deducting l/4th from the income of the deceased, the yearly loss of dependency would be worked out to Rs. 27,0001-. Considering the age of the deceased i.e. 34 years, the appropriate multiplier would be 16 according to Sarla Verma's case (supra). By applying the multiplier of 16, the amount would come to Rs. 4,32,000/- towards loss of dependency. Appellant No. l/ wife of the deceased is also entitled for Rs. 5,000/- towards the loss of consortium. Each of the claimants is also entitled for Rs.. PI*»«N^ 5,000/- towards loss of love and affection i.e. total Rs. 30,000/-. They are also entiUed for Rs. 10,000/- for loss of estate and Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses. Thus the clainiants are entitled for Rs. 4,82,000/- as amount of compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till its recovery in place ofRs. 5,80,OOO/-. 11. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award is set aside. The claimants are entitled for Rs. 4,82,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum frorn the date of application till its recovery against the appellant/owner, respondent No. 8/driver and respondent No. 9/insurerjointly and severally. 12. Therefore the appeal is allowed in above terms. SA/- I.M.Qiiddusi Judge Sd/- ~'~ N.K. Agrawal Judge