i T-T?B t^iA-lA-^^*' .,-.J-^-/~.-., ^-f' -'-"-' BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL rCI N0^6 /2010 Oh—-F APPELLANT Non-applicant No. 2 •fi-' RESPONDENT No.l Non-applicant No. 3 RESPONDENT N0. 2 APPLICANT N0.1 RESPONDENT No. 3 Applicant No. 2^ RESPONENT No. 4 Applicant No.3 ^ ^ ^ ^ Kunwar Singh S/o Ram Chandra Yadav, aged 48 years; Occupation Plough by tractor (owner of vehicle ractor No. CG. 07 N. 245 (wrongly mentioned tractor trolly No. CG. 07 N. 246), Resident of village Kurda, Police Station and Pos - Than- Khamhariya, Other Address - Raut para, Thana - Khamhariya, Post & P.S. Than- Khamhariya, Tahsil SAJA, District Durg (C.G.). Versus Branch Manager, National Insurance company Limited, Gil- Complex, Near Gurudwara; Station Road, Durg (C.G). Mrs. Durga Bai dhruve (Thakur) Wd/o Samaru Dhruve (Thakur) aged about 30 years, Occupation - House wife. Puran Kumar Dhruve S/o Late Samaru Dhruve (Thakur), aged about 5 years, Shiva Kumar Dhruve S/o Late Sainaru Dhruve (Thakur), aged about 2 years. Respondent No. 3 & 4 are minors Through natural guardian mother - respondent No. 2/applicant No.l, Mrs. Durga Bai Dhruve thakur wd/o Late Samaru Dhruve (Thakur) All resident of Uslapur, Police Station- Sahaspur Lohara, Tahsil and District Kabirdham (I^awardha) C.G. RESPONDENT Ramadhar Patil S/o Bhagat Ram No. 5 Patel, aged about 48 years, caste - Non-applicant Marar, Occupation - Driver of No. 1 ^_ Tractor SE Trolloney No. C.G. 07 N. 245 C.G. 07 N. 246, resident of village Karamal, Post Berla, other address village - Sond; Tahsil and Police Station - Berla, District Durg (C.G.). MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF M.V.A. 1988 TO SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED AWARD OR TO MAKE RESPONSIBLE THE INSURER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - RESPONDENT N0. 1 \^Ju<A'en Q^sff^-^M^^- z'65 Claimed Before'Trillinal - 24i85,OOOA- J>cn»/- z-t-lo Q3_fi9L5QQ2^ s ""%: '^/''''"'^ ^ ^sM'gaa U <i tjSSSP^ B ^ vi5^£[&.t'"" ^ ^ ^ ^j^7 ^f^ °%>s^. ''^.^^•t HI6H COURT OF CHHWTnse4R!-iATJBILASPUR &IVISIO(i_«EWH: HON'BLE AAR. I.M.QU&DUS2 & HON'BLE MR.6ULAM AAINHAJU&MN^JS ABBelJsnts \ Respondents M.A. (C1 No.821/2010 Kunwar Singh Vs Branch Manager National Insunmce Compony Limited & 4 other-s rreseot; Mr. 5udhir Verma, Advocate for the appettomt. .Mr. Sautam Khetnipal, Advocate for ihe respondent No.l. None for -the respondents No^ to 5 though served. ORbERfOral) (7th Juiy. 2011) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. This appeal has been filed by the oppelkint-owner aganst Ihe award dated 27.11.2009 passed by the leamed Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (FTC), Bemetara, Disn. Durg [C6] (for short- the Claims Tribunal') in Ctaim Case No.72/09, so far as tt relates to fastening of liability to pay compensation to the claimants on him. 3. Facts of ttie case, in brief, are that on 16.01.2009 when Somani Dhurve (since deceased) was putt'ing a wooden log on the rear side of tracter-trolley bearln9 registration number C607-N-248 & C607-N-246 respectively, the drh^er of the said troctor-trotley, all of a suddai, reversed the vehicte as a result he oame under rear tyre of the vehicle ond sustained grievous injuries. He wos taken to the Sector-9 Ho^ital, Bhiiai for treatnwnt where he died while undergoing treatment. Matter .was reported in the Police Station Bemetara. The claimants, who are widow and chitdren of the ^eceoaed, have filed ctaim application seeking compensation to the Tune of Rs.24,86,000/- on •t+ie ground -that they were dependent on the decensed, who wns sole eaming member in the family, ond due to his death they have suffered loss of income. Ut 4. The Claims Tribunal vide impugned award dlowed ctaim of the ctaimants, BNdurded a compensation of Rs.3,69,500/- and saddted. the appeltant with the liability to pay compensation to the claimants. 5. We have heard leamed counsel for the parties. We have also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. 6. From perusal of the first information report. • charge dieet filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C, after investigation by the police, ctaim opplicution filed by the ckiimants and statements of -t+ie witnesses, it is estabtished that at the time of accident the deceased was not travelino in the tractor- "trolley in question rather he was puttmg wooden tog in the rear wheel of troltey on the instruction of the driver of tractor-trattey ond 1+ie driver, due to his own negli9ence i.e. without ascertaining Ihe fact that whether the deceased has come out from beneath the troltey or not, reversed the vehicle as a result the deceosed came under rear tyre of vehicle and died. Therefore, finding of the Cktims Tribunal that deceased coutd not have been treated as third party, as he was deputed as a labourer on Ihe vehicle, is not sustainable. Smce, we do not find any breach of policy conditions, it can be safely held that present is a case of third party ond os the insurance policy is a 'Misceltaneous and Special Type of Vehicte Policy & Package' in which risk of five labourers was also covered beskles third party risk, as extra premium was paid for this, we are of the opinion that Insurance Company is only Ikible to pay compensation To the claimants. 7. At this stage, tearned counsel for the reqiondent-Insurance Company has submitted that this Court moy peruse quantum fixed by the Claims Tribunal oe while fixing the compensation the Claims Tribunal has not followed the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Swia Ve/wa (Smt.) evid others -vs- Dwlhi' Transporl- Coi'pmwtion and eamttwr reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 has not been foltowed. 8. On the oral request of respondent No.l, we have perused the quantum ptrt of the impugned award and found that multiplier of l7opplied by the Claims Tribunat is not correct for the reason Ifaat at -ttie time of accident the deceased was aged about 35 years and as^per taw laid down m Sarkt Vermas case (supra) multiplier of 16 would be oppltcabie in such a circumstomce. Thus, if we apply multiptier of 16 to the total loss of income i.e. Rs.20.000/-- as assed by the Claims Tribunat, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.3,20,000/- (20000x16). Besides this, the widow is entitied To get Rs.5,000/- towards loss pf consort-ium, they are also entitled to receive Rs.5.000/- each towards loss of love A affection, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and fts.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus,in our opinion, the total compensation for which the ckiimants are entitled forisRs.3,45,0007- <md not Rs.3,69,500/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 9. In the result;- • Appeal of the cppelkxnt-owner is allowed ond he is absolved from his Iktbility to pay compensation to the claimantswhich shall be now puid by the respondent No.l-Insurance Company. In case any amount depositetl by the appelkmt-owner has been withdrawn by -tlie clainwnts, it will be open for him to recover it from the re^iondent No.l. However, if the amount, so deposited, has not been withdrown a»far, the appellant diall be altowed to withdraw the same. • So far as the quantum part of -Hie impugned nward is concerned, -Hie same is hereby modified to tiie extent that now the claimants shaU be entitled to receive compensation of Rs.3,45,000/- in place of fts.3,69,500/- as aworded by the Cktims Tribunal. Rest of -the conditions of the impuyad awurd shall remain intact. No order as to costs. JO^Cprtified copy as per rules. Sd/- , I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Roriian/- 1