L// ,r\ ¢1 «0“ ”5% m m Hm}; com? e? cams? TISGARH Am Elmsmm 1 1 gmggm. NO.‘ 1101 OF 2004 L.a v WPELLAN‘E (V OWNE f: shyam Lal Nayak‘, Son 9f Shri B ~.’ Nayak, aged about 36 years remdent ef Waré. No. 4, ' Lakha. garh, Pollce Station z Plthoura, V s .District : Mahasamund ( C G ) EEEU l; Mohit Rani; son of Vasudev $~"/Nisad,‘ aged about 45 years Smt Himoti. wife o£ Whit Ram Nisad, aged about 38 years. - ( Both are resment of Vlllage z Eurko, ?olice statlon s Basna Dmtnct : Mahasamund .. C G ) g 32/ 0/ United Lté, India through Insurance its $enior Compan Dimslonal Manager, D1v.1- ’ slonal effice, Krishna Complex. Katchery Chow, Raipur, Dlstt : Raipur ( Mangal Singh, Son of Ralnu L31 Dewan, aged abeut 30 years resident of village : Sewai, ya kale, Police station z ‘ ce’f ) DRIVE x CG) ;;_mA,A,_#ge wAM A $1thoura, Dit stt . Mahasamund § X { i\ 1’ ‘ claim in‘kpSpeaLgveluea ate Rs; 1. 52, ( $61211: ife‘eior‘fegs‘ lS/a afiixeg: ‘ \ a R / y i § r' ( ’ ‘ y/ may w €HIGH co'URT. OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR I _ , ‘ § MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 MIS’CELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE l APPEARANCE. Mr V K Pandey, counsel for the appellant Mr. J. A. Lohan1 counsel for respondent no 1 &'2 Mr Dashrath Gupta counsel for respondent no 3 None for respondents no 4 1 i I JUDGMENT (ORAL) (1 1 . 1 1 .20 10) er QUDhUSI, J, Thls appeal has been nled by the owner agamst the nnpugned award dated 01 10 2004 passed by the II Motor Acc11dent Claims Tnbunal Mahasamund 1n Clmm Case No‘ 1 / 2004 fastemng the hablhty on the owner and dnver r l L Bnef facts of the case as per the version of claimants are that on 05.10.2003 deceased Nehrulal and other villagers were going &om village Sevajkala to visit goddess Khallan' by o Cofnmander Jeep bearing regn.No.O4/Z.D.-3922. On the way at Daragaon, the said vehicle which was being driven by respondent no 4 rashly and neghgently became uncontrolled and dashed agamst a tree, as a result of Whlch the occupants mcludmg the deceased sustamed Injunes and dunng the course of primary rueaunent the deceased has died on the same day at about 7-8 pm, in Government Hospital, Bagbahara. Respondents no. 1 &. 2 being claimants L P DB: HON’BLE LM. QUDDUSI as * HON’BLE N.K. AGARwAL, JJ ‘ M. A No. 1101 or 2004 I APPELLANT J I Shyam Lal Nayak A ‘ Vs. RESPONDENTS l J ‘ Mohit Ram and 3 others '7 nts) haw $ed elmm peuuon cla1m1ng to the tune of 16,60,000] — on d1§ensnt heads. €“ ha learned chims Tribunal has awarded a‘ total I Iompensation of Rs.1,52,000/- which the claimants axe mitled to receive &om the owner and driver exoneran'ng the ppellant insurance Company from its liability to pay iompensation. The Tribunal held that the odending vehicle et‘ with an accident on Bagbahara-Mahasamund Road hile it was being driven by respondent no.4 rashly and . negligently and the deceased who was traveling 1n the said Jeep has d1ed m te said acolden It has Iiuther held that the deceased was occuant of the eep and as such h k d un ~ . 04. Learned counsel for the appellant contn that the fac and Circumstances of th cas, the Tunal has wrongly iifced the liability on the owner and driver: an it ouht to hajve held tha the Insance Company is liable to pay compensation. p J is ris Was not covere der the Insurance Policy. 05. We have pered the reord of the Tribunal nd have also gone through he evidence. The ecease was an occupan oJf the said Private Jee. The polic as issued uder motor package policy. The as no eence that the deceased was a fare pd passener. I View of the Circuar dated 1§.11.2009 iued by th Insurance Regula‘tory and Development Authority, the insmed’s iability in respect of occupant(s) canie in private vehcle that is Car o Jeep is covered unde the standard Mor Package Poli. In the circular dated 1 11 200 e insurer attentin has been drawn to the wgs f sn (II) 1(1 of he Standard Motor Package Po (als called Comprehene Poy) which reads as unde l « x d a i r r to cy 6 9 th s o ordm o ectio ) t licy o s1v lic r “Secion- iili o d Parties tll Labty t Thir . Sbec to th f by la down m the Scedle hereto the Cpany l indemnify the insed in he event of an accident caused by or arising out f the use of h t eds 1n ts e e rib d g t ur us cs a t dd t p y w n re w vid ai g n l ss e l 1 ujt e limits o liailit as id hu om Wil ur t /\ o / 08. the insured vehicle against all sums which the insured shall’become legally h'able to pay in respect of — (i death or bodjly injury to any person‘ including Occupants carried in the vehicle (provided such occupants are not carn'ed for hire or reward) but except so far as it is necessary to meet the xequirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Company shall not be liable Where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of employment of such person by the insured.” ‘4: In the instant case, the deceased was an occupant of the said vehicle at the time of accident and the occupants are covered under the motor package policy. Therefore, the insurance company is also liable to pay the compensation. Learned counsel for the claimants/ respondents 1 8r. 2 have filed counter claim under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of : Civil Procedure and contends that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very meager and prays for enhancement of the award. The age of the appellants on the date of accident was 42 and 38 years and the average age is 40 years. If we treat th overall age of both the claimants as 41, the multiplier 14 according to the specification laid down in Sarla Verma’s case reported in (2009} SOC 121 would be applicable. The ‘ standard deduction for personal expenses would be 50% The income has been assessed as Rs.3000/ - per month and Rs.36,000/— per month and after deducting 50% towards personal expenses, the annual dependency would come to Rs‘ll8,000/- per anrftiin. After applying multiplier 14, the total dependency comes‘Rs.2,52g000/-. Besides this, looking to the age of deceased as 2O years, Rs. 10,0001 ~ each should have been awarded for loss of love and adection; Rs. 10,000/ — i for loss of estate and Rs.5000/ - for funeral expenses. . Thus, i it comes to Rs.35,000/ - under other heads. After adding e i ‘ ‘ 9) Rs.35,000[ -, the total compensation comes to Rs.2,87,000/ - which in our opinion would be just and proper compensation. Therefore, we enhance the compensau'on awarded by the tribunal from Rs.1,52,000/- to Rs.2,87,000]- which the claimants are entitled to re‘ceive fmm the respondents jointly or severally along-with interest @ 6% per annum mm the date of hh'ng of the claim petition till the date of realization, Out of this Rs. 1,50,000/ — shall be deposited in fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank for a period of six years. I 9. i Aecordingly, We allow ’the appeal in part as also‘the cross iobjections preferred by the claimants and modify 1he i quantum of compensation to the above extent. The amount E v of compensation shall also be payable by the owner, driver i ‘ and Insurance Company jointly or severallyt > e-*::L’_.‘ _ Mi ’lsdl- 7’ ' g. i 1.M.Quddusi Sd/— f ‘1 9 N. K. Agarwal y Judge Judge ‘u: .3 F ,7! a,