•^» C^) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL fCI N0. ^ ^O /2010 ^. . iB8ff(A MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS ^^ / ^ ^/ / -: ^4 ^ f^ ^ ^ ,.^ A- ;;? /^ ^^ RBSPONDENTS Driver VEHICLB ACT. 1988 1. Chintamani S/o Late Gurjendra Sahu, aged about 07 years. 2. Ku- Duleshwari D/o Late Gurjendra /\ Sahu, aged about 05 years. Both are minor through mother Gayatri Bai wd/o Late Gurujendra Sahu. 3. Gayatri Bai wd/o Late Gurujendra y Sahu, aged about 25 years. ^' 4. Sukhbati w/o Nanduram Sahu, aged about 50 years. 5. Nanduram Sahu S/o Late Shiv Prasad Sahu, aged about 55 years. All R/o village Choubebandha, Post Rajim, Police Station Rajim, District Raipur (C.G.) f- VERSUS Manharan S/o Mohan Lal, aged about 25 years, R/o village Choubebandha, Post Rajim, Police Station Rajim, District Raipur (C.G.). D 1 &...: 1:^ © o Owner Insurer ^^ o^" .< ^:^- ^^__ Mohan Lal Sahu S/o Jagdish Ram sahu, aged about 50 years, R/o village .Choubebandha, Post Rajim, Police Station Rajim, District Raipur (C.G.) IFFCO Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, IFFCO Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited, No. 345-347, 3rd Hoor Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, G.E. Road, Raipur, Tahsil 8& District Raipur (C.G.) _~.~^ZZZZIZZZ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BSLASPUR Hon5ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J» APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS MAfCiNo. 650 ef 2010 Chintamani and others. Versus Manharan and others. Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for the appeijants. Shri Arun Kochar and Shri Dilip Singh, eounsel for respondents No. 1 &2. Shri Amrito Das, counsel for respondent No. 3. QRAL ORDER (08^04^2011) FoJlowing oral order or the Court was passed by I. M. Quddusi. J. This appeal has been filed by the appeilants/claimants against impugned award dated 22/04/2010 of the Chief Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Dhamtari (C.G.) in Claim Cas& No. 70/2010 dismjssing the ciaim petition of the claimants/appeliants. (2) Brief facts of the case, as per the version of claimants are that, on 23/04/20)8 deceased Gurujendra Sahu along wjth other labourers were going to Hasda No.1 for bringing pacta'y seeds in Tractor bearing Registration No. C.G. 05/B/8906 attached with troliey bearing Registration No. C.G. 05/B/8907. In between viljage Budena and Bhendri road. as a result of rash and negligent driving of the Tractor by non-applicant No.1, deceased Gurujendra Sahu came under the wheeis of the trolley and was crushed. He received grievous injuries and on the spot. At the time of accident deceased was aged about 29 ye-ars. Deceased was a labourer and used to earn Rs.3000/- per month. in addition to this. he used to earn Rs. 20.000/- per year by working in agricuitura! field belonging to his father. "\ ^ (3) It is not disputed that there was no sitting capacity in the troiley attached to the tractor in question. It is not disputed that the deceased was engaged as labourer and was getting Rs.2500/- per month frorn the owner as stated by the driver of the tractor who was son of the owner as weli as by the companion labourer of the deceased who was also sitting in the troliey. They were going for the purpose of ioading paddy seeds. (4) The deceased as weli as other labourer namely Parmeshwar Yadav were directed to sit inside the troiiey by the son of the owner who used to pay salary to the deceased as stateci by himseif in hls statement. Once the deceased labourer was directed to sit inside the trolley by the driver son of the owner jt was totally the risk of the owner/driver as there was no sitting capadty and as such the labourer should not have been dlrected to slt inside the trolley. Though in the statement of Parmeshwar Yadav it has come that the deceased was nabbing but side by side he has also stated that the road conditlon was bad and there were speed breaker at various places. The driver has also stated in his statement that due to speed breaker he applied the break and at that time the deceased fei! down and sustained injuries resuiting in his death. When the road condition was bad and there were speed bre-aker the driver shouid have taken care of it but no care was taken and ail of sudden break was used when he saw the speed breaker. The trolley was not flat one and as such there were no chance of the deceased to fell down uniess it would have been driven rashly and negligentiy in a high speed. Appiyjng break all of sudden when speed breaker was seen by the driver, therefore it cannot be said that driver of the vehicie was not driving the tractor rashly and negligentjy in high speed. (5) Therefore, we are of the opinson that slnce there was breach of condition of the insurance poiicy inasmuch as the tabourers v/ere directed .^^\ ';./ ^.....^s ^i^ ^8 ^ i^g»><"-"| j %. .... ..// ~^^{ ^ '^s^ -5- ^ to sit inside the trotley where there was no sitting capacity, Insurance Company was not ijable to pay compensation, it is the owner who is liabie to pay compensation. (6) In view Qf evidence avaiiabie on record, we shail now proceed to caiculate the amount of compensation. for which the ciaimants are entltied. The deceased was aged about 29 years and was married. There are five numbers of dependents. He was getting Rs.2,500/- per month i.e. Rs. 30.000/- per year. According to the case oiSarla Verma (Smt) snd others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in f2£%?9J B S.C.C. 121, % is to be deducted for personal and iiving expenses where number of dependents are 4 to 6 (see paragraph 30). Therefore, after deducting % i.e. Rs.7,500/- from the income as personai living expenses of the deceased the remainder comes to Rs.22,500/-. Considering the age of the deceased as 29 years a multipiier of 17 as laid-down in Saria Verma (supra) would be applicabie and therefore the totai ioss of dependency comes to Rs.3,82,500/-. Besides this, the widow claimant No.3 would be entitled to get Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortiumand the remajning four claimants would be entitied to get Rs.5.000/" each for loss of love and affection. Besides this, they are entitled to get Rs.5.000/" for funera! expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 4,17.500/-. Besidss thls. the c!aimants would be entitied to get a simple interest @ 6% per annum from the of fiilng of the ciaim petition tili its payment is made. (7) Out of the above amount of compensation a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- shail be deposited as fixed deposit for a period of 15 years in the name of ciaimant No. 2 Ku. Duleshwari aged about five years in the guardianshlp of her mother Gayatri Bai and Rs.1,00,000/- In the name of ciaimant No.1 Chintamani the minor son of the deceased for a period of 12 years. The /I" ^^ ^^^' -^' ^il^. parents, daimants No.4 and 5, would get jointly Rs.1,00,000/- and the remalning amount aiong with interest accrued to the asnount of compensation wouid be paid to the wido'w of the deceased namely GayaSri Bai claimant No.3. (8) The amount shai! be recoverable jointjy and severaliy from the owner and the driver of the tractor,the respondent No.1 and 2 respectively. (9) The appeal is allowed accordingly. (10) No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^ /