,F.^ iGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BJLASPUR 'BLE SHR! RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. ^HMII lf!IMABC|MUfl 1 'Oi1fiBfc. r^Uiyiyaa^ Oii^niri, *f» i"~a</i» iSa-it.,. Oi"ir^.! ApDetlants ^i^..~»^".k^ \^iciii l lcii ilo 1 Smt Gayatri Sahu Wd/o Gopal Ram, ^^^.^ -S^) ^—.^^^ cty^u <?^, yc'cij^ 14 An.iani D/o Gopal Ram Sahu aaed years mlnor throi nexi mother Gayatri Sahu Chandra PraKash S/o Gopal Ram, aged 11 years minor throuyh nsxt friend ;r Gavatri Sahu 4 Ku. SaSva Sahu D/o Gopal Ram aged 7 years IViinor for all the sbove minors No.2 to 4 through next friend mother ^!^s^^S ^jsycii Oci iU \l\uin vvu/u <->upai Cultivator resident of village Pausari in the Poiice Statior ilasDur Tahsll-1 Siiha Distnct The Oriental insurance Company Limited., office (fvlandal Office) at laspur, near t-ligh Couri: District Bii'aspur (CG) Ifli. under Sectjon_173 of the IVIotor Vehicles ^noo Present ; Shri JSP Chandrasen, counsel for the appellants. Shri SudhirAarav/al, counsel forthe resoondent. (10th Augisst, 2009) The fol ina order of the Court was .'^^-^ ^. I 1 This is cialmants' aopeai ror eniiancement comDensation awarded by the El iti Ciatms Tribunai, Bilaspur (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 23.03.2006, passed In C-laim Case No.9/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.19,50,000/- ciaimed by the appellants / claimants, unfortunate widow snd children of deceased Gopalram Sahu by ftling a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 13.05.2005. the Tribunal a d Rs. 1.00.! compensation to the ciaimants along wiyi interest @ 6% per annum from the date of ftling of the clalm petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri. JSP Chandrasen, learned counsel for the apDetiants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 .OO.OOO/- only. 4) Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent placing reliance on the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of reported in (2008) S SCC 736, supported the av>'ard and contended that as the deceased was owner of the vehicle invoived in the accident, the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable at all and the claimants at the most were entitled to get the amount under the terms of the policy. 5) The claimants filed the claim petition under Section 1 63-A of the IVIotor Vehicles Act for the death of deceased Gopalram Sahu. The claimants themselves pieaded in , the claim petition that 1 '^^KfSt, Yv decegsed Gopalram Sahu was coming on his motorcycle bearing registration No.CG 10/13-B/0468 and no other motor yehicle was involved sn the accident. 6) The Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Rajni Devi (supra) while considering the malntainability of the claim petition by the claimants under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of the owner of the vehicle himself observed in paras 11 & 12 as under: "11. The Ilability under Section 163-A of the Act i.s on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot be both, a ciaimant as aiso a recipient. The heirs of Janak Raj could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163-A of the Act. For the said purpose oniy the terms of the contract of insurance could be taken recourse to. 12. According to the terms of contract of insurance, the iiabillty of the Insurance Company was confined to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). It was liable to the said extent and not any sum exceeding the said amount." 7) in view of the above quoted dlctum of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Rajni Devi (supra); the ciaim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicies Act filed bv the claimants for the death of deceased Gopalram Sahu, who v/as owner of the motorcycle in question was not maintainable and the claimants were entitled to get compensation only in terms ofthe Insurance Policy. s^, ..^'•:-A. Y.v'- ~^..'•----... 8) In the present csse it is not in dispute that an extra premium of Rs.50/- was paid by the deceased for covering his personal risk. in the Insurance Policy tt has been specificallv mentioned that PA cover under Section III for owner / driver (CSI) was to the extent of ts.1,00,000/-. The claimaRts, thus, were entitled to receive a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- only, on account of the PA coverage of the deceased by pavin.g extra premium of Rs.50/-. 9) Since the Tribunal itseif has.awarded a sum of Rs.1 .OO.OOO/- to the claimants.which is awardable under the terms of insurance Policy, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded bythe Tribunal. 10) The appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is herbv dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. . -—-_-__-— Chief Justice Sdi- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge paama