IN THEIHIGI-I COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL Iva/36 OF 2005 Lmvisgon égnm1 . > APPEktANT ifBajaj Allianz General Insurance f ‘Company Limited through the Branch Manager, Shivmohem Bhavan ,Pqndri,Raipur [C.G.] ‘V. Non-applicant no. 2 ‘ V‘E R S U S A‘ ' REsbONDENa‘ l 1.‘ Soh‘ma'ti Thakur aged about 44 I ” {/Kyears w/o late Rajesn‘ alias Rajendra Thalur, 1 l i Applicant no. 1 JKu.Sunita d/o late Rajesh alias 2. Q, ‘Rajendra Tha~kur aged about 17 years. w, u. ' Applicant no.2 Ku.Jyoti ratna d/o late Rajesh ,8/. alias Rajendra Thalur aged about 15 years Applicant no.3 Respondent 1to3areR/0 Village Devridih,To\rva,Tah.&Distt.Bilaspur M.Ramarao s/o not known aged v about 2Z years r/o . Locokholi Railway C olony Bilaspur [C .G.} "\\[driver‘_ .&owner Lof Hero Honda registration,no.CG- 10BA/O667}\ Applicant no. 4 s: t5 r 9‘ ‘ fWtae «MJMM w in w ‘ (“/e ‘7 ’e “gggn :5»— a. g A / i“t ‘ a[ t ? u L L MISC. APPEAL NOJ'Zé'yOF 2005 K aim: 1re$pwxd$nc no.2 an§ 3 thmugh that natural gnarman matber gmt. Sawmati Tnakur w/ Lats Rajesh alias Ragenara Thakur, age§ about 44 years R/o Village 0v?» De?£i?‘h‘ Towa, T311511 a3d E1at31cta, Bila$Pura IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Lmyision gawk? ‘ Am}! MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 113 p MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 198.7 «TE. 87 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. n" ASPUR CORAM: .Hon’ble Shri l.M.Quddusi,J.I& i Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. MA. N9. 13§9 of 2005 'Bajaj’ Alliénz General Insurance Company Limited . Versus ' RESPONDENTS SonmatlThakurand others -- -3" - ; Shn Rajesh Pandey and Shn Dashrath Prajapatl counsel for the appe!!ant ‘ i Shn Sudhir Kashyap and Shn NP Chandrakar counsel for j respondents No 1 to 3 . i i Fol‘lowing oral order of the l APPELLANT ORAL ORDER ( 08/041201 1 ) Court x was passed by l. M. ouddug, J. l l This appeal has been med by the appellantlBajaj Allianz General lnsurance Company Lrmlted against the Impugned award dated wr- 07/10/2005 of the IV Additional Motor Accrdent Claims Tribunal Brlaspur (C.G.9 In Clarm Case No. 63/2005 on the ground of liability as well as i quantum. ‘ i i - l (2) The appellant was granted permission under Section 170 of the MotonVehicles Act: (3) Bnef facts of the case as per the versron of the claimants are that n 11/02/2005 deceased Amen Lal Thakur was coming from Takhatpur in motorpycle belonging to non-applicant No.1 and deceased was sitting in the mbtorcycle as pillion-rider. J'he motorCycle._was being driven by non- applicant No.1 rashly, negligently and in very high speed. ‘As soon as they reached near village Khapri. the motorcycle hit a tree beside the road and caused the accident. Ameri Lal Thakur and non-applicant No.1 received l x _ o { { x i Q \ grigvous injun'es. As a result of grievous injuries, Ameri Lal Thakur died. De eased was aged about 27 years and was working as Technician Grade - ll in South Eastern Centrai Railway, Bilaspur. He used to get salalry of Rs.9,510/~ per month. V‘The claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.19,20,000/- but the » Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,05,540f-. Committee made it clear that the lnsured’s liability in respect of Occu‘pant(s) carried in a Private Car and Pillion Rider carried on Two- wheeler is covered under the Standard Motor Package Policy Further in that Circular the followmg has been mentioned “All General insurers are adVised to adhere to the aforementioned Circulars and any non-compliance of the same would be Viewed seriously by the Authority“ i (6) Eln view of the above circular of the insurance Regulatory and e Develbpment Authority which is binding on the appellant. The liability of the appellant to pay compensation to the deceased pillion-riderof two wheeler a (4) “With regard to the liability learned counsel for the appellant has subinitted that the deceased was pinion-rider which cannot be treated as third party and as such the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation (5) [ lt is not disputed that the insurance policy of: the vehicle in question is a gcomprehensive policy also called as Standard Motor Package Policy. The? Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) vide its circular dated 16'“ November, 2009 addressed to all CEOs of General insurance Companies reminding the circular issued earlier dated 18th March 1978 [regarding occupants carried in Private Carl effective from ‘ 25th; March 19?? and 2““ June 1985 [regarding Pillion Riders in a Two- «ex. k ‘ Wheeler] effective from the date of the circular issued by the Tariff Advisory e»w. ‘ wlio was having a Comprehensive Policy i.e. Standard Motor Package Pqlicy cannot be ruled out. ¥ wqo was an employee has been assessed by the claims Tribunal as 7 T1 Ol- per month The deceased was havma only Widow mother and two mi With regard to the quantum the monthly income of the deceased un marrred susters aged about 17 years and 15 years respectively ‘ dependent upon hlm. The age of the deceased was 3O years and he was a bachelor. ln paragraph 32 of Sarla Verma (SmtJ'and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anothercase reported in (2009) 6 S C C 121 the Hon ble Apex Court has laid down that where the family of the bachelor Is large and dependent on the income of the deceased as in a case where l g. ' he ihas widow mother and Iarge number of young non—earning sisters or brothers his personal living expenses may be restricted to 1/3 and contribution will be taken as 2/3. Only th‘e deceased brother had to make necessary arrangements for the marriages of his two Sisters In future and as such his monthly deduction for personal Irvmg expenses would be J confned to 1/3 of his income and contribution to the family to be taken as 2/3i (8) Further considering the young age of the deceased who was an employee 'in the South Eastern Railways, his future prospects of rise in r income: promotion etc; are also liable to be considered which is restricted I to 50% in all to his income at the time of death. Therefore, 50% of the monthly income assessed bythe Tribunal i.e. Rs. 7,91 Ol- would be 3,955/—. l Thus, considering the future prospectsi the income of the deceased is to be assessed at Rs. 11,865l- per month. After making 1/3 deduction towards personal and living expenses the remainder’comes to Rs.7,91 0/- and; assessing the annual income the same will be Rs. 94,920/-. énsidering the age of the mother as 44 years a multiplier of 14 wouid be applicable as laid-down in Sar'a Verma’s case (supra), therefore the total toss of dependency comes to Rs. 13,28,880/—. (9 The Tribunal has assessed the toss of dependency as Rs.1 2,83,0401- which is lesser than the amount catculated by this Court (1Q) Since there is no cross objection there is no . question of enh‘an‘cement of the amount of compensation tixed by the Tribunal. t However, we are of the opinion that in view of the above calculations, no interference is required by this Court in the amount of compensation assessed by the Claims Tribunal in its impugned award on the appeal of theE instant appellant. l l (1 11) Therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed. ;,. Vi‘ i C . (12) No order as to costs, 7’? Sd/_ l Sdl— l l I.M.Quddusi Prash’ant Kumar Mishra 1 Judge Judge