c.^ IJ. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR \ MISC. APPEAL (0 N0. CT 1 /2008 s .^ APPELLANT XON-APPLICANT N0.2 ^Anita Jain, D/o Roopchand Jain, aged about 32 years, R/o Mangaldeep, Apapura, P.S. Durg, Teh. And Distt. Durg (C.G.) VBRSUS R^SPONDENTS : {~^ J.. Smt Sunita Jain, Wd/o Late Sanjay Jain, aged about 26 years, R/o Shivpara, Durg, Teh. and Distt. Durg (C.G.) ^2,, Ku. Sejal D/o Late Shri Sanjay Jain aged about 02 \^/\y^ ^^y/'" -.<^ ^ years, R/o Shivpara, Durg, Teh. and Distt. Durg (C.G.) y^y" ^' «<^ ...^.' i^" ^: ^ ^" Claimants. Santosh Jain, S/o Shri Roopchand Jain, aged about 29 years, R/o Apapura, P.S. Durg, Teh. And Distt. Durg (C.G.) Driver. ?- 4. The Oriental Insurance ^' Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, Malviya Nagar, Durg, Teh. And Distt. Durg (C.G.) Insurer. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S f73 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 j-"—-'^.^... ^ < ^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. (C) No. 790 of 2008 Appellant Anita Jain Versus Respondents Smt. Sunita Jain 85 others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Justice G. Minhajuddin, JJ Shri P. R. Patankar, Advocate for the appellant/owner. Shri B. P. Singh, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2/ Claimants. Shri Kunal Das, Advocate for the respondent No.3. Shri Sudhir Aganval, Advocate for the respondent No.4. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 28th day ofJune, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. 1. This appeal filed by the appellant/owner arises from the impugned award dated 20th March, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No. 50/2006, awarding a total sum of Rs. 4,18,000/- to the claimants, fucing the liability on the owner of the vehicle to pay^the amount of compensation, exonerating the insurance company from any liability to pay the amount of compensation. 2. The, brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 24.10.2006 deceased Sanjay Jain was going to Durg from Balod by Maruti Car, bearing registration No. C.G. 07/6417. On the way, near village " Madyapar the said vehicle, allegedly driven by non-applicant No.l in a rash and negligent manner struck against a Nilgiri --:x ..y ^^ tree causing heavy damage to the Vehicle. As a result of this accident one of the occupants namely Sanjay Jain died on the spot. The non-applicant No.2 (Anita Jain) was the owner of the vehicle and it was insured with the non-applicant No.3 ~ The Oriental Insurance Company. The offence relating to the accident was registered at Police Station Gunderdehi. The claimants, being legal heirs/dependents of the deceased i.e. widow and two years minor daughter filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for award of a total compensation ofRs. 75,50,000/- under various heads. Learned Claims Tribunal having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record held that the car was being driven in violation of the conditions of the insurance policy and the deceased was not a third party rather he was a gratuitous passenger, thus held that the appellant/owner is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,18,000/- to the claimants along with interest @ 6% p.a. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the impugned award and the papers available on record. The Claims Tribunal imposed liability upon the owner on the ground that the deceased was neither a third party nor was an owner or driver of the vehicle, and as such the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. We have found that the insurance company had insured the vehicle under a package policy (Package Policy for Zone B Private Car). It may be noticed that the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Head Office, New Delhi vide circular No. •^SES^TSS^-'S^fi^S^ ff ^ 8. HO/MOT(U/W)/282/2008-09/CR-6473, dated 25& November, 2009 in regard to "Liability of insurance companies in respect of occupant of a private car and pillion rider in a two wheeler urxder standard motor package policy (also called comprehensive policy)" to the effect that vide circular dated 16.11.2009 the IRDA has confirmed that insured's liability in respect of occupant carried in a Private Car and Pillion Rider carried on two wheeler is covered under the Standard Motor Package Policy. Therefore, it was advised to immediately review all cases where appeal has been field on the grounds that Insurer is not liable for occupants of Private Cars and Pillion Rider in a 2-wheeler under the Motor Package Policy. If the appeal is based solely on these grounds then it must be immediately withdrawn. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the deceased was one of the occupants of the vehicle in question and therefore the above circular in which it has been clarified that the occupant in a private car is covered under the comprehensive/package insurance policy, is applicable in the present case. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the liability fixed by the Claims Tribunal on the appellant-owner is liable to be set aside and the finding of the Claims Tribunal in regard to the Issue No.2 is set aside. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant-owner challenging the liability part of the impugned award dated 20th March, 2008 is set aside. In the instant case, since the insurance company was exonerated by the Claims Tribunal and the appeal is filed by the owner of the Car, we are of the opinion^that the prayer made by learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company to consider the quantum part of the award deser^es to be allowed, overruling the objection on the part of the claimants that no separate appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum. Accordingly, we proceed to assess the quantum part of the award. 9. Since we have exonerated the appellant/owner from liability to pay the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal and imposed the same upon the Insurance Company, the arguments are heard on the point of quantum. 10.^ Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the multiplier in this case while assessing the compensation has wrongly been applied by the Tribunal. In this regard we have perused the impugned award and the evidence on record,The age of the deceased was 33 years and his monthly income was assessed as Rs. 3000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per year. After deducting l/3rd towards personal and living expenses, the yearly dependency was assessed as Rs. 24,000/-. As the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the ratio of the decision in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another1 would be applicable, according to which in the case on hand the multiplier of 16 should have been applied, instead of 17. Therefore, taking the yearly dependency as Rs. 24,000/- and applying the multiplier of 16, we award a sum of Rs. 3,84,000/- ( Rs. 24,000/- x 16) towards -loss of dependency, instead of Rs. 4,08,000/-, as has been (2009)68cc 121 r ^- 11. 12. awarded by the Tribunal. Besides this, under the conventional heads we award Rs. 5,000/- to the widow for loss of consortium and Rs. 5,000/- to the minor daughter for loss of love and affection. Further, we award Rs. 5000/- for loss of estate and Rs. 5000/- for funeral expenses. Therefore, after adding Rs. 20,000/- we award a total compensation of Rs. 404000/- ( Four Lacs, Four Thousand), instead of Rs. 4,18,000/-. Rest of the conditions imposed by the Tribunal shall remain intact. In the result the appeal filed by the appellant/owner is allowed, the impugned award dated 20th March, 2008 is modified and the amount of compensation is reduced to the above extent. No order as to costs. ^ k If any amount has been deposited by the appellant/owner, the same shall be allowed to be withdrawn and if already disbursed to the claimants, in that case, the owner would be entitled to recover the same from fhe Insurance Company. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Thakur