^-^say^ -y, I fa^ 1 —^J t^-,-^'^ '""•sA.s^z^^ n C^J Sa 2 Smt Ganga Bai Patel, aged about 40 PateS Ram aaed years, widow of Malik Ram PateS Videshi Patel, s/o about 12 years, Minor irihaspati Bai, d/o Late aged about 10 years, minor lik Ram ).2 & 3 minor through natural guardian mother Smt Gangs Bai Patel, aged about 40 years, widow of Malik Ram Patel All residents of village Muru via Chakarbhata Camp, Tahsil 'Bilha Distt Bilaspur(CG) Anil Kumar Upadhyay s/o Shyam Kesar aged about 27 years resident of Sheorinarayan, Tahsii Navagarh Distt Janjgir Champa Presently residing at village Muru via Chakarbhata Camp, Tahsi! Bilha Distt Biiaspur (CG) Sukhiram Patel, s/o Pahartaru (Paharu) aged 20 years, resident of viliage Muru via Chakarbhata Camp, Tahsil Bilha Di'stt Biiaspur (CG) United India Insurance Co Ltd., TP Nagar, Korba Through Branch Office, United India Insurance Co Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Bilaspur (CG) W:r Pardeshi Patel, S/o Malik Ram aged 17 years (Presentiy 18 years) resident of vil!age Muru via Chakarbhata Camp, Tahsil Bilha Distt Bilaspur (CG) Shri Ravindra Agrawal, counsel for the appellants. Noneforrespondents No.1, 2 and 4 though served. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. sth The following order of the Court was passed This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Biiaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 01.04.2006, passed in Claim Case No.32/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.9,79,000/- ctaimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and children of deceased Malik Ram Patel by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of ihe Motor Vehicles Act for his death on 05.02.2005 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 02.02.2005, the Tribunal awarded a tota! sum of Rs.2,45,400/- as compensation a!ong with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitlon till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased iVlalik Ram Patel died on 05.02.2005 3 AC.No.230 of 2006 ^ on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 02.02.2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicie Tractor bearing registration No.CG-11A/4138; though the above offending vehicle Tractor on the date of the accident was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited under a Farmer Package Policy, by the owner of the Tractor in that was not iiable to pav the risk of the persons traveiling in the Tractor was not covered as no extra premium was paid behaif, the Insurance Company to the claimants and the liability in that behalf was that of the owner and driver of the Tractor. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.120/- per day. By deductiRg 1/3rd of Rs.120/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the ctaimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.80/- per day; Rs.2,400/- per month; and Rs.28,800/- per annum. By multiplying the annua! dependency of Rs.28,800/- with the multiplier of 8, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,30,400/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.15,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum-of Rs.2,4S;400/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Malik Ram Patel in the motor accident. The Tribunat further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,45,400/- @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri Ravindra Agrawai; learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in exonerating the insurer of ini-—i 4 M.A.C.No.230 of 2006 the Tractor from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants; in selecting the lower multiplier of 8; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,45,400/- oniy. 6) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the risk of the deceased who was travelling in the Tractor was not covered under the insurance poiicy, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurer ofthe Tractor from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants. 7) So far as the finding recorded by the Tribunal teading to exoneration of the insurer of the offending vehicle Tractor is concerned, it is apparent from the insurance policy that the Tractor in question was insured under a Farmer Package Policy. The insurance policy does not reveal that any extra premium was paid by the owner of the Tractor for covering the risk of the persons travelling in the Tractor in any capacity. We, therefore, do not find any Infirmity in the above findlng recorded by the Tribunal leadins to exoneration of the insurer of the Tractor from its tiabiiity to pay compensation to the claimants and hoiding the owner and ctriver of the Tractor alone liable topay compensation to the claimants. 8) Now, we shal! examine as .to whether the compensation of Rs.2,45,400/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9) The claimants cannot have any legitimate grievance about the assessment of the income of the deceased bv the Tribunal at inr I.A.C.No.230 of 2006 A Rs.120/- per day as they themselves pleaded and proved the income ofthe deceased to the extent of Rs.120/- per day only. 10) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 11) Deceased Maiik Ram Patel was shown to be 60 years of age in his postmortem report. In fact, the claimants' witness AW-5 T.R. Yadav, Assistant Sub Inspector in his cross-examination admitted that deceased Malik Ram Patel on the date of the accident was aged about 70 years. !n this state of evidence, we do not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that deceased Malik Ram Patel was aged about 45 years only on the date of the accident. Since deceased Malik Ram Patel was aged about 60 -70 years, the multiplier of 8 selected by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. 12) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13) The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liahig -to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 14) No order as to costs. ^ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agrawa! Judge subbu