IN THE HQITBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR w MISC. APPEAL rct N0. 'S i^ /200®(S.B.) ••80'rs ^ '%^S^i (MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF/THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT^1988 VALUED ® 1,97,000/- l APPBLLANTS NON-APPLICANT N0. 2 fiB 4 ^b .-f;^ y ^^:..<^ s-^ \< RBSPONDENTS Ar > 1- 2. 3. ^' 4,.. ,F-t Manrakhan Singh s/o. Shri Dariyav Singh, aged about 65 years, R/o village Parsuli, Tahsil- Gurur, District- Durg (C.G.) Dilip Singh s/o Shri Kanhaiya Singh, aged about 53 years, R/o village Siwar, Tahsil Berla, District- Durg (C.G.) VERSUS Rupeshwar Kumar S/o late Harikishan Sinha, aged about 6 years. Umesh Kumar s/o Late Harikishan Sinha, aged about 3 years, Kanti Bai wd/o Late Harikishan Sinha, aged about 25 years, Rukhmani Bai w/o Shri Chintaram Sinha, aged about 53 years. Appellant No. 1 SB 2 are niinor, hence impleaded through their natural guardian appellant no.3/ mother. All R/o village Parsuli, Tahsil Gurur, District Durg (C.G.) Chumman Lal s/o Shri Manohar Lal Yadav, aged about 47 years, R/o village Parsuli, Tahsil Gurur, District Durg (C.G.) 6. National Insurance Company Ltd. through - Branch Manager, Office at Mobin Mahal, near Rajbandha ground, Raipur, Distarict Raipur (CG) 7.; The New India Insurance company Ltd. through - Branch Manager, Office at Thakkar Chamber, G.E. Road, Power House, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). ••v^ MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988VALUED (% 1,97,000/- ^ ^. IJ' ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR.J, APPELLANT RESPONDENTS APPELLANTS NON-APPLICANT N0.2 & 4 Misc. Appeal (0 No.1678 of 2008 1. Rupeshwar Kumar, S/o Late Harikishan Sinha, aged about 06 years (Minor), 2. Umesh Kumar, S/o Late Harikishan Sinha, aged about 03 years (Minor) 3. Kanti Bai, Wife of Late Harikishan Sinha, aged about 25 years, 4. Rukhmani, Wife of Chinta Sinha, aged about 53 years, Appellant No.1 & 2 are Minors, Through ~ : Guardian (Mother) Smt. Kanti Bai, Wife of Late Harikishan Sinha, All R/o Village—Parsuli,Tahsil Gurur, Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Chumman Lal, S/o Manohar Lal Yadav, aged about 47 years, R/o Village Parsuli, Tahsil Gurur, District Durg (C.G.) 2. Manrakhan Singh, S/o Dariyav Singh, aged about 65 years, R/o Village Parsuli, Tahsil Gurur, District Durg (C.G.) 3. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Near Mobin Mahan Rajbandha Maindan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Dilip Singh, S/o Shri Kanhaiya Singh, aged about 50 years, R/o Village Sivar, Tahsil Berla, District Durg (C.G.) 5. Branch Manager, Divisional Office, The New India Insurance Compnay Limited, Mandal Office, Thakkar Chamber, G.E. Road, Power House, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) Misc. Appeal (C) No.301 of 2009 1. Manrakhan Singh, S/o Dariyav Singh, aged about 65 years, R/o Village Parsuli, 'Tahsil Gurur, District Durg (C.G.) 2. Dilip Singh, S/o Shri Kanhaiya Singh, aged about 53 years, R/o Village Siwar, Tahsil Berla, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS APPELLANTS NON-APPLICANT N0.2 & 4 RESPONDENTS 1. Chintaram S/o Shri Rama Sinha, aged about 57 years, R/o village Parsuli, Tahsil-Gurur, District Durg (C.G.) 2. Chumman Lal, S/o Manohar Lal Yadav, aged about 47 years, R/o Village Parsuli, Tahsil Gurur, District Durg (C.G.) 3. National Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, Office at Mobin Mahal, near Rajbandha ground, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Dilip Singh, S/o Shri Kanhaiya Singh, aged about 50 years, R/o Village Sivar, Tahsil Berla, District Durg (C.G.) 5. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Office at Thakkar Chamber, G.E. Road, PowerHouse, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) Misc. Appeal (C) No.3l1'|bf 2009 ^ 1. Manrakhan Singh, S/o Dariyav Singh, aged about 65 years, R/o Village Parsuli, Tahsil Gurur, District Durg (C.G.) 2. Dilip Singh, S/oShri Kanhaiya Singh, aged about 53 years, R/o Village Siwar, Tahsil Berla, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Rupeshwar Kumar, S/o Late Harikishan Sinha, aged about 6 years, 2. Umesh Kumar, S/o Late hlan'kishan Sinha, aged about 3 years, 3. Kanti Bai, wd/o Late Harikishan Sinha, aged about 25 years, 4. Rukhmani, Wife of Chintaram Sinha, aged about 53 years, Respondents No.1 & 2 are minors, hence impleaded through their natiiral guardian respondent No.S/mother. 5. Chumman Lal, S/o Shri .Manohar Lal Yadav, aged about47 years, R/o village Parsuli, Tahsil Gurur, Disfrict Durg (C.G.) 6. National Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, Office at Mobin Mahal, near Rajbandha ground, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 7, The New India Insurance Company Limited, through - Branch Manager, Office at Thakkar Chamber, G.E. Road, Power House, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) ••7' fy MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF TUE M6Tt>R VEHICLESACT.1988 Appearance: Shri P.P.Sahu, counsel for the appellants in M.A.(C) No. 1678/2008 and respondents No.1 to4 in M.A.C. No. 317/2009. Shri S.C.Verma, counsel for respondent No.3 in M.A.(C) No. 1678/2008 Shri Amiya Kant Tiwari, counsel for the respondents No.2 & 4 in M.A.(C) No.1678/2008 and appellants in M.A.(C) No.301/2009 & M.A.(C) No.317/2009. Shri Dashrath Gupta with Shri Sanjay Gupta and Shri Deepak Gupta, counsel for respondent No.5 in M.A.(C) No. 1678/2008. Shri Rakesh Sahu, counsel for respondent No.3 in M.A.(C) No.301/2009. Shri Deepak Gupta, counsel for respondent No.4 in M.A.(C) No.301/2009 and respondent No.7 in M.A.(C) No.317/2009. Shri Dashrath Gupta with Shri Sanjay Gupta, counsel for respondent No.6 in M.A.(C) No. 317/2009. ORDER (Passedon _^_. 12.2010) M.A.(C) No.1678/2008, M.A.(C) No.301/2009 and M.A.(C) No.317/2009 are being disposed of by this common order since they are arising out of same accident which occurred on 25.06.2007. 2. It is not in dispute that Chumman Lal is the driver of tractor bearing No. C.G.07/D/7727 (for short 'the tractor') and Manrakhan Singh is the owner of the tractor. It is also not in dispute that National Insurance Company Limited is the insurer of the tractor. It is not disputed that Dilip Singh is the owner of the trolley bearing No. C.G. 07/D/6469 (for short 'the trolley') whereas the New India Insurance Company Limited is the insurer of the said trolley. 3. Brief facts, in a nutshell, are that on fateful day of 25.06.2007 Harikishan Sinha-and .Chintaram. were.,sitting in the said tractor-trolley, which was carrying agricultural manure to village Parsuli and at village Loharsi on account of rash and negligent driving of Chumman Lal, the said tractor-trolley was turned turtle, as a result ofwhich, Harikishan Sinha was crushed underneath the trolley whereas Chintaram sustained severe injuries over his body. Incident was reported at police station Arjuni where crime No. 171/2007 for the offence punishable under section 279, 337, 338 'and 304A of the I.P.C. was registered. 4. As against the compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- sought by the claimants (legal representatives of Harikishan Sinha) by fiting claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of Harikishan Sinha in the motor accident, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.1,97,000/- as total compensation to the claimants in claim case No. 111/2007 vide its judgment dated 29th July, 2008. Similarly, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.16,300/- as total compensation for the injuries sustained by Chintaram in claim case No.114/2007 by the same judgment. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29 July, 2008, the claimants i.e. legal representatives ofthe Harikishan Sinha, are before this Court for enhancement by filing M.A.(C) No. 1678/2008. Similarly, Manrakhan Singh and Dilip Singh, owners of the said tractor-troltey als:<- preferred separate appeals being registered as M.A.(C)No.301/2009 and M.A.(C) No.317/2009 for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 29th July, 2008 as the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants of Harikishan Sinha as well as the injured Chintaram is on higher side. 6. All parties led their evidence before the learned Claims Tribunal. The learned Claims Tribunal has, on close scrutiny of the evidence, assessed the income ofthe deceased Harikishan Sinha at Rs.15,000/- per year despite there was no cogent evidence regarding income of the deceased. After deducting Rs.5000/- therefrom, the annual dependency was worked out to Rs.10,000/-. Looking to the age of the deceased Harikishan as 34 years at the time of accident, the learned Claims Tribunal applied multiplier of 17 on the annual dependency. The annual dependency if multiplied by 17, then amount of Rs.1,70,000/- was worked out. By adding Rs.27,000/- under other heads, the total compensation was worked out to Rs.1,97,000/- for the death of Harikishan Sinha in the rnotor accident. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants in M.A.(C) No. 1678/2008 argued that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per year as notional income and has also erred in applying multiplier of 17 whereas it should be 18. He placed reliance in the matter of Durjan & Others vs. Ashok Kumar & Others, 2009 (3) C.G.L.J. 191 (DB), wherein this Court held that if the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and the cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2001, the year of accident, in the present case are taken into consideration,' the notional income of Rs.15,000/- prescribed in the second schedule in the year 1994 would certain come to Rs.30,000/- in the year 2001 and accordingly this Court proposed to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum. Lastly, he urged that compensation awarded by the Tribunal should suitably be enhanced. ; 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the owners of the tractor- trolley argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side and multiplier applied by the Tribunal is also not proper whereas it should be 15. He also argued that owners are not responsible to pay the compensation because the tractor-trolley was insured with the concerned insurance companies and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal ought to have paid by the insurance companies concerned. The Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability to pay compensation on the owners and the owners of the tractor-trolley have also preferred separate appeals, as stated above. 9. Learned counsel for both the insurance companies whjle supporting the impugned judgment argued that the tractor-trolley was plied against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the learned Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties, has rightly fastened the liability on the owners by exonerating the insurance companies. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the Claims Tribunal including the impugned judgment. 11. In M.A.(C) No.1678/2008 preferred by the claimants for enhancement, as argued by the learned counsel for the claimants/appellants that the notional income of Rs.15,000/- was fixed in the year 1994 and looking to the increase in the prices of the essential commodities and cost of living between the year 1994 and the year 2007, the notional income should be Rs.30,000/-. Relying upon the judgment of this Court reported in Duijan & Others vs. Ashok Kumar & Others (supra), I proposed to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3 from Rs.30,000/-, the annual dependency would come to Rs.20,000/-. If the annual dependency of Rs.20,000/- is multiplied by 17, as applied by the Tribunal, the amount would come to Rs.3,40,000/-. By adding Rs.27,000/- under other heads, as awarded by the CIaims Tribunal, the total compensation would be worked out to Rs.3,67,000/-. The learned Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.1,97.000/-. If this amount of Rs.1,97,000/- is deducted from Rs.3,67,000/-, awarded by this Court, then the difference comes to Rs.1,70,0007- (Rupees one lakh sevenfy thousand only), which the claimants i.e. legal representatives of the deceased hlarikishan, are entitled for his death in the motor accident. 12. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in M.A.(C).No.1678/2008. 13. The accident in the present case, wherein deceased Harikishan Sinha lost his life, took place in the year 2007; the claim petition was also filed by the claimants in the year 2007; the impugned award was passed by the Tribunal in the year 2008; the present appeal was filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation in the year 2008 and the appeal is being finally decided in the year 2010. Considering all the relevant factors including the delay in disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal, 1 quantify the amount of interest on ~the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,70.000/- at Rs.10,000/-. 14. For the foregoing reasons, M.A.(C) No.1678/2008 filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The claimants in the said appeal for enhancement are entitled to Rs.1,80,000/- more, in addition tothe amount awarded bytheTribunal. 15. Now the question that remains for consideration is as to who is liable to pay compensation amount. According to learned counsel for the appellants / owners in M.A.(C) No.301/2009 and M.A.(C) No.317/2009, the deceased Harikishan Sinha and the injured Chintaram were sitting in the trolley as labourers of Manrakhan Singh but the leamed Tribunal has wrongly held that they were travelling as gratuitous passengers and on the date of accident, both tractor-trolley were insured .with National Insurance Company Limited and the New India Insurance Company Limited, therefore, liability, if any, be fastened on the insurance companies and should not be fixed on the owners. He placed reliance in the matter of Narendra Singh v. Govind @ Nanhu And Others, 2006 (II) D.M.P. 233 (WI.P.). 16. In order to appreciate the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, 1 have perused the evidence of Manrakhan. It is clear from his evidence that Harikishan and Chintaram are the son and father. It has come in his evidence that a document called as Adhiyarnama Ex.P.12 (sharing of half the land for agricultural purpose) was executed between him and Harikishan Sinha Ex.P.12, according to which, Manrakhan had given his land on rent to Harikishan on 15.05.2007 to plough his field. It is clear from Ex.P.12 that Harikishan Sinha used to look after the field by ploughing the same and whatever outcome of the crop was also used to be shared between Harikishanand Manrakhan by distributing 50 - 50 each. Similarly, Manrakhan had also given to Chintaram one acre agricultural land under Adhiyamama which was exhibited as Ex.P.21. Manrakhan, in his evidence, had deposed that they used to earn Rs.4000/- per annum from the field which was given to Chintaram. This shows that Manrakhan had given his agricultural lands on rent under Adhiyarnama to Harikishan Sinha and Chintaram, who were tbe persons to take the agricultural lands from Manrakhan and plough the field and also to spend the expenses and thereafter used to share the outcome of the crop by distributing 50-50. This also shows that hlarikishan Sinha and Chintaram were not labourers of Manrakhan. From the evidence of Manrakhan, it is also clear that both Harikishan Sinha and Chintaram spent some money on field. It is also clear from his evidence that Manrakhan did not pay even single penny to Harikishan Sinha and Chintaram for looking after his field but they used to share the outcome of the crop by 50 - 50. It is also apparent from his evidence that Harikishan Sinha and Chintaram are the shareholders of Manrakhan Singh. 17. It has also come in the evidence and pleadings of Chintaram A.W.1 that he is completely healthy man and prior to accident he was working as health protector (Karyakarta) in his village and used to treat the patients. He was earning Rs.2500 - 3000/- per month out of that employment. It has also come in his evidence that he is having 4 acres of agricultural land and out of which he also earns by raising crops. This further shows that Chintaram has no time to work for Manrakhan and Dilip Singh. : It is also clear from the pleadings of Kanti Bai A.W.1 that Harikishan Singh was working as a mechanic of bore-well and submersible pump under ^4ukesh Sahu. She has not specifically pleaded that her husband was only Adhiyar of Manrakhan Singh. In her statement afso, she has stated that her husband was working under Mukesh Sahu as mechanic of bore-wt.,, and submersible pump. Mukesh Sahu A.W.3 has also supported the statement of Kanti Bai A.W.1 and has specifically stated that deceased Harikishan was working under him as mechanic of bore-well and submersible pump and he used to pay Rs.3000/- per month as salary. Ex.P.15 is the certificate which shows that the deceased was working under Mukesh Kumar Sahu A.W.3. This shows that Harikishan Sinha was not labourer of Manrakhan. On the date of incident also, both Harikishan Sinha and Chintaram were taking manure, iron rods and cement for their own work and not for Manrakhan and Dilip Singh. Six persons were also present with them in the trolley. The aforesaid facts make it evicient that Harikishan Sinha and Chintaram were not labourers of Manrakhan and Dilip Singh. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that Harikishan Sinha and Chintaram were labourers of Manrakhan and Dilip Singh is unacceptable. The reliance placed by thc learned counsel for Manrakhan and Dilip Singh is fully distinguishable on facts and thus not applicable to the case. 18., After perusal of evidence on record, it is apparent that both Harikishan Sinha and Chintaram were travelling in the tractor / trolley as gratuitous passengers. According to Dilip Singh N.A.W.3, it is clear that trolley was insured for only labourers and not for passengers. The learned Claims Tribunal has rightly held in its paragraph 13 that both Harikishan Sinha and Chintaram were travelling in the tractor / trolley as gratuitous passengers. 1 am of the opinion that the learned Claims Tribunal did not commit any error by holding that they were not the labourers. It is also ^^.^^-^atia^jtk&^i^h^ clear that trolley was attached with tractor and tractor Vi/as being driven by Chumman Lal rashly and negligently, as a result of which, the accident took place. It may be noted that trolley cannot be moved without tractor or any attachnnent and the said trolley was attached with said tractor, due to which accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by its driver, therefore, the owners of the tractor and trolley are wholly responsible to pay compensation. 19. For the foregoing reasons,.! am of the considered opinion that the iearned Claims Tribunal did not commit any error in fastening the liability to pay compensation awarded by it, to the claimants and has rightly exonerated the insurance companies from its liability to pay compensation. 20. Consequently, M.A.(C) No.301/2009 and M.A.(C). No.317/2009, being devoid of merit and substance, are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. Resultantly, the owners of tractor and trolley shall pay the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- awarded by this Court, to the claimants. \^a ,>n<-^ '^ iv~*->\^ . —-—-—— 1 Sd/- R.L.Jhanwar Judge