mm HIGH COURT OF CHHRTTISGARH AT BILASPUR M. A. NO. iHon’ble Mr. Just APPELLANT (Nomapplioant No. 4) REsPONDEN’r No. 1 (Applicant) RESPONDENT NO.2 (Non-applicant No. 1) RESPONDENT No.3 (Non—applicant N62) 155 GF 2006 ice Dhire§dra Mishxa! ’ The Balangir (Ofissa), through Managef, The x New India Assurance Ck}, Ltd, Balangir, District — Balangir (Orissa) New ’Company India Assurance Ltd . , Urmila Bai Patwa, widow of Late? Kailetsh Fatwa @ Jugat Fatwa, R/o. village Sonamundi, RS, Bagbahax‘a, District Mahasamund (CG) Ashsish Agrawal, aged abcut 2. 32 years’,S]o. Paras Agrawal, Kha’riyar Road, Ward N0. 10, Police Station Jonk, District Nuwapada (Orissai Sunil Kumar Chakravarti, aged about 54 yaam, S/O. Satendra Kumar Chakravarti, Vsi m Ca; p@I—:I?gfuxLaQ ‘ XIAkIC—78 mW, mm,W WI. m Apai 200 amt m (1W) mmm wmm W mam r WW WW $ 31W?m ‘ 2~ a R/o. Police Staticn Jonk, District Nuwapada (On'ssa) RESPONDENT No.4 4 Vinod Kumar Gupta, S/o. Shri (Nan—applicant No.3) Ghanshyam Gupta, near Shanna Traders, Tifra, fBilaspur, present address; Kantabhanji, ‘Distn'ct Balangir (Orissa) ‘ Present: Shri N.K.Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Shn' D.K.Gupta, counsel for the appellants. Shn' Ashok Dubey for respondents No. 2 to 4. 4.. 19.06.2001 This is insurer’s appeal under Section 173 of the Motor (73 Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter shall be called as ‘the. Act’) against 1 x the award dated, 17.3.2006 passed by 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tn’bunal, Mallasamund in Claim Case No. 136/ 2005 whereby a sum 10f Rs. 1,22,000f- has been awarded as compensation to respondent No.1 for the death of her son namely Raju Patwa who died on 194.2005 While he was travelling in a Matador hearing Iegisti'ation number OR-03iA-401 which overturned near Ghatipada Mendir resulting in grievous injuries to the deceased who ultimately died. The vehicle was owned by xmc 78 WW,W,W *‘wL 200 am m (WY) Wm WWW WWW ;m&rw%am Wamafeelm 'avaimsnésr \\, respondent No.2 emd was being driwn by msgondant No.4 at tlm r€levant tinm. Lemued Sr. Counsel 1131‘ {ha appellant submits that the. V€hicle €11 question was regiS' deceasai was travelling in paSSEngar and in these Ci fa$tsn€d upon the. appeJlan condiiion. He. further submits the tribunal under Section 1' defence on other grounds. The age of the claimant‘ie admittedly armed tribunal, however multiplier of 58-60 years, as held by the 1e 10 is applied in place of 8. Respondent No. 1/ c t Unnila Bai has also filed cmss- objection under Order 41 R1 leA 22 of the CPC and stated in the cross objection that the age 0 deceased was 35 years at the time of accident and he was e gaged in the profession of selling vegetables by which he earning Rs.3,000/- per month. However the tiibunal has ap lied multiplier of 10 in place of 18 and also assessed the inco e of deceased at Rs. 2,000/~ per month and assessing the l of dependency at Rs. 1,000/- the amount of compensation has een computed at Rs. 1,222,000] —. So far as the ground taken by the appellant/ Insurance Company that the deeeas was a gratuitous passenger and therefore the Insurance Co pany is not liable to satisfy the 'ered as a goods vehicle however the the said vehicle as a gratuitous rctimstances no liability could be ts, as theie- is a breach of policy that the appellant was permitted by i0 of the Motor Vehicles Act to take o e 1 s w XI—HC—‘78 WW,WW,W m m ............................... ‘ F1: 200 3mm (W) ‘ > _ mm %ém Wmm> h $3r§mm stipulates in this mgard that “third party insurarwe covers the death/ of 03f bodily injmy i0 am pefSon indudiitg the owrcer 0f the gaads v'or his auihan'zed represen 111 View of the above, arg 11; of learned ‘31 Cotmsel fox the appellaih 111 tlns legard 1S WlthouV any bas1s So far as the other obJec 1s concerned as also the cr0$s% objection of the respondent is concerned, from the. evidence, available on recortl, which has been dealt by the tribunal ’in ‘ pai‘agrayh 14‘ of the. award, the eased at 4O years on the basis of‘gostniortem report and accm ingly assessed the age of the (laimant between 58 60 years A ixI- f fw fn. However I am of the opmi 1 that the reasoils ass1gned by the Tribunal for applylng n1 Itipher of 10 fox assessing ompensatlon is pioper and the s impugxmd awam is concemsd flom the €v1d€11c€ avallable on n3c01t1 it is evidsnt that the d€ *easal was travelmg 111 the sald , Matador along with his watermelnns Enid Section 147(1)(b)(1) cleanly : itle carr‘ea" in the vehicié’ f u 1 is no evidence adduced by the :jlaimants regarding age of the de eased. However, the tribunal in l Para 14 has assessed the. age o L hat her son was earning Rs 3 00 f pei month fiom the busmess mt no exodence has been led 111 this legard and m these ucumstances the tnbunal has ssessed the monthly income of eoeased at Rs 2 OGG/ - cannot be faulted, However, conSidenng the overall ev1dence vailable on 1ec01ad further t tio i , V f c e d:n XI—€—'8 H7 m% mmm. considering that the daceased x selling wattar nmlons, the incom tribunal is madeqllate and inst assessed , the income at R$.3,000!' be just and :p’roper if the compeli > is assessekiuby taking monthly/it and fdfthef faking loss of depeltl vhich would come to Rs 18 000/ 1e multlpher of 10 the tatal ?s 1 80 000/ {RS 1 500 x 1’) X 10 s 0f lave and a0ect1011 R8 2 OO( 131 the result the appea mpany 1s Wlthout any substsu the cross-obJectxpu 0.1/c1aimant is allawed the anced to Rs 1 87 000/ and a 1 ‘ awarded to respondent No 1 Wlt s‘olnectlon Le. 6.112006. osit the additional amount of compensation with the M.A.C’.T. hin a period of one month from in a‘ fixed deposit scheme of a // owever, r rd shall be further deposited atoday. The enhanced amount of ionaljzed bank for a periodof fxje years. vas engaged in the business of a of Rs.2,000/- assessed by the ead the tribunal ought to have - per month. Therefore, it would sation payable to the respondent .come of deceased at Rs.3,000j- Viency atRs.l,500}’- per month, - yer annunl and after applying loss of dependency would be l Rs, 5000/ - is awarded towaids )f - towards funeral expenses. l preferred by the Insurance ee and the same is dismissedh piefen‘ed by lespondent amount of compensation is 1 additional sum of Rs.65,000/ - 1 interest @ 6% hem the date of ‘he Insurance Company shall Sd/ Ju ge Dhirendia M‘s’ma 2 - '5‘1 s o ‘ h s p 't La t