SB- Hon’ble Shri Justice R L. Jhanwar, Misc. Appeal No. 1 107]2004 APP , LANTS (Non- pp'licant No.1 8a 2) 1 Maso /o Buu R/o Village Kapar, post Kaklur Tahsil Jagdpr, S. Darbha, strict Bastar (CG) 2 ’Baga gh aka s/ Sadu Dhak Aged out 3 yers, / Pajkpara, Pakhnar, P.S. Darha, District Bast (C) Versus Koyamm s/o la Gudi R Cast Madi ae out 5O fears, Budri Bai x Koy ste W/o aram, ca Madia, e aout years Both Ro lage Pr, Dong‘r Gruda ra Post Pajr pra, RS Darbh, sric Bastar (CG) ( 1 ‘ gw‘ t I i t I I s l RESF’ONDENTS’ (Claiman'ts) APPEkL UNDER SECTION 1‘73 OF I Th Unite Insulanc omn Throug T g, nup Chowk, Chouras omple, Jagdp, District astar G) Shanti oy a abbt 25 yar R/o D Kodenar i Bastar (G THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Appearance r he aellns Shn Sanosh Bhaiat counsel fo t ppat ¥Shn Dashxath Gupta and S ay Guta, counsel for respondent No 3 d [None l for respondents No 1 2 an 4 y-N HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR i . ‘ s d an , alu R Di t Sin Dhd, ro ad, ab O a Ro b ar G te d am, e a, gd ab agd b 4O , / vil akhna i Pa, kia, a . a Ditt e d e Cpay h he Manaer Ama ia Cx alur B (C Pami ged u es, 11m111 P S , Dstrict C) hn SnJa p RAL ORDER ( 1m9.2o1o) {.Lf Jhanwar, J. 1. The appellants havc‘filsd this appeal under Section 1’73 of ‘ the Motor Vehicles Act for setting aside the awaxd dated 18.8.2004, passed in Claim Cases Nos.65/2004 and 66/2004’ by the 3rd Additional Motor Aocident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalur (CG) (in short the Tribunal). Claim Case No. 65/2004 has been med on behalf of Koyafam and Budn’ Bai, parents of the deceased and Claim Case No; 66/2d04 has been tiled on behalf of Shanti Poyami, wife of the deceased. The Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.1,18,000/ - to the claimants against the claim petition hled before the Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. and exonerated the insurance Company. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 9.7.2002, deceased Poyami Chaitu was going to Jagdalpur. On the Way, near Kodenar, Bhagat Singh, who was dn‘ving Tractor‘No.CG17 G1 C156 in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, Poyami Chaitu fell down and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to thos :7 injuries. Appellants No.1 and 2 are the owner and driver of the Tractor and respondent No.3] non-applicant No.3 is the insurer. of the Tractor. ‘Wx Appellants/respondents Nob.» 71 and 2 in their Written Statement have denied all the facts-and stated that the o e eceased was the son of respondents .No. 1 and 2‘ They also denied that the Tractor No. CG17G/0156 was being driven rashly and negligently. They stated that the ‘ . deceased was sitting on the mudguard of the Tractor and the owners of the tractor are so many persons and they ’ have not been made party. Respondent No.3 — The United Insurance Company has also. denied all'the facts and stated that Tractor No. CG 17G10156 and Tmuy No. CG 17G]0157 was insured with them only for agricultural purpose, but on the date of incident the Tractor was plying against the conditions of Insurance Policy; ‘the deceased was sitting on the mudguard of the Tractor: the driver was not having valid and edective licence therefore, Insurance Company is not responsible for payment of compensation. After appreciation of the evidence and healing the counsel ‘ for the parties, learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the Claim Case No.66/2004 filed by Shanti Poyami and warded compensation in Claim Case No.65] 2004 for Rs.- 1, 18,000] -k along with interest @ 6% p.a. ham the date of nling of the Claims petition till its reali7ation. The Tribunal has fastened the liability on the owner and driver of the Tractor and exonerated. the Insurance Company. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1500/— and by deducting 1/3“ towards personal expenses, Rs.600/-(550 + 100), worked out dependency of‘the‘ claimants at Rs. 10,800/- and after applying multiplier orgio calculated the annual dependency of (the claimants as Rs.1,08,000/- and W d ‘ a awarded Rs.10,000/— under other heads, Tribunal has Rs.1,18,000/ -. After marshalling- the evidence, the Tribunal found that the Driver was not having valid and eEective licence; therefoxe, the liability was fastened upon the owner and driver. awarded a WO total thus, the compensation of Learned counseL for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in law in fastening the liability upon the owner and driver instead‘insurance company; on the ‘date of incident, the tractor was being used for agricultural purpose and deceased- Poyami Chaitu was sifting in the Tractor and he himSelf was negligent, therefore, he fell down and sustained injuries. The Tractor was insured with the Insurance Cempany. Appellant No,1- Maso was not the only owner of the Tractor. There were so many persons owner of the Tractor, to whom the claimants have not made party and on the basis of it, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petitions. 'He argued that the claimants are paients' of the deceased, therefore, the compensation should have been assessed on‘ the basis of 1/ 2 deduction. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company argued that the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company as the driver was driving the tractor without valid and eEective licence and- deceased was sitting on the mudguard. In the Tractor only driver can sit, therefore, there is breach of policy. "v-\ p4 ‘ Poyami, ‘s I { \ { u applying multiplier dependency of the claimants as Rs.1,08’OOO/- and awarded Rs.10,000/— under other‘heads, thus, the Tribunal has Rs. 1, 18,000] - to the claimants] respondents No. 1 and 2. 2 i . ‘ 1 1 i \ i l of 10 rd” calculatéd thé concerned, it is ‘clear that the deceased was traveling in §:the Tractor, Whereygnly driver can sit. Thus, the tractor - was plying against the Motor Vehicles Act and in breach of insurance policyf Sukhwant Singh. (NAW— 1) has stated i . I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the record of the Claims Tribunal. l 173 So far as exonerating the Insurance company is I k l l l i l 1.‘ l It is clear that two claim cases were tiled. The Tribunal « has dismissed claim case No. 66/2004 tiled by Shanh' deceased and has awarded wife of the compensation in claim case No. 65/2004, tiled by the parents of the deceased. In para 9 of the judgment, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1500/- and by deducting 1/3rd towards gpersonal expenses, Rs.600/ -(550 + 100), worked out the dependency of ‘tlie claimants at Rs.10,800/— and after annual total awarded a compensation of 1 So far as the multiplier is concerned, multiplier of 10 has been applied. No doubt, Tribunal has deducted l/3Td considering that wife of the deceased was also claimant, though her petition has been dismissed. The Tribunal i has awarded . total compensation of 13s.1,18,000/- (towards dependency 1,08,000/- + other heads10,000). The Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 10,000- under other heads in a case of death, which is very less. / O 9p ‘ in his evidencs that only driver can sit in the Tractqr and driveIJs n'sk was covered. The driver Was not having valid and eEective licence on the date of incident. The incident took place on‘9‘7.2002, and according to the evidence of ‘ Bhagat Singh (NAW—2), he‘was having driving licence No. i B~9110/CG, valid from 7.2.2004 to 6.2.2024. It shows that he was driving the Tractor without any licence and the deceased was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor and he fell down, therefore, the insurance company is not responsible. The Tribunal has rightly exonerated the :Insuranc‘e Company and fastened the liability on the owner and driver of the Tractor. ‘us i4. So far as compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,18,000/ - to the claimants. The law in relation to awarding compensation in accident cases is well settled. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Tribunals are under obligation to award “just and reasonable” compensation to the genuine claimants after determining the factum of accident as also the factum of rash and negligent act on the part of driver of the od‘ending vehicle. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be windfall for the victim. :l‘he statutory provisions clearly communicate that the compensation must be just and it cannot be a bonanza. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just and which would depend upon the paru'cular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in' the background of “just” compensatiorf' which is pivotal consideration and t requires judicious approach. The expression “just” denotes equitability, fairness, reasonableness and non-arbiu‘ariness. Please see state ofHaryana and another Vs. Jasbir‘Kaur and others, (20031 7 SCC 484 and Helen C. Rebello @rsJ and others Vs. Maharashtra State‘ Road Transgrt Corporation and another, (1999) I SCC 90. 15. In View -of the above, I do not fmd any infirmity or I V ‘ : irregularity in the awani passed by the Claims Tribunal warranting any interference. So far as deduction and Amultiplien is concerned, after assessment, the. compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper. 11:6. The appeal has not merit. The same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 1’7. There shall be no order as to costs. sél‘ / ii isv-m" waV ‘ a)? . 3“/a/ge%’/‘,/ WM