€3^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAhfl: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J, Misc. Appeal (C)No. 373 of 2008 ApRellants Claimants 1. Smt. Sumitra Bai Baghel, w/o late Pishadu Ram Baghel, aged about40 years. 2. Prashant Kumar, s/o late Pishadu Ram Baghel, aged about 19 years. 3. Ku. Ritika Baghel, d/o Pishadu Ram Baghel, aged about 16 years. 4. Ku. Priyanka Baghel, d/o Pishadu Ram Baghel, aged about 13 years. 5. Tankeshwar Baghel, s/o Pishadu Ram Baghel, aged about 10 years. Appellants No. 3 to 5 are minor through their naturat guardian mother Smt. Smitra Bai Baghel, w/o late Pishadu Ram Baghel, aged about 40 years. All the appellants are reasident of village Adanga Dohalapara, tehsil Keshkal, district Bastar C.G. VERSUS Respondents Non-claimants K. Babayya, s/o Nadai Babayya, aged about 27 years, r/o Bharat Nagar Colony, Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) Vehicle Driver Ajay Kumar E. s/o Ramulu, r/o 1-2- 606/10, B.M. Nagar, Lower Tank Band, Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) Owner of the vehicle •BW .,yf" ..-^: 's^ "'ig S ^••y 3 H.D.F.C. Chubb General Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, Second Floor 6-3-346/1 Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) Insurance Company Appeal under Section 173 ofthe IVIotor Vehicle Act. 1988 Present: Shri Varunendra Mishra, counsel for the appellants. Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (29th June, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kondagaon, Bastar (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 20.12.2007, passed in Claim Case No.87/2007. 2) Asagainst the compensation of Rs.15,70,OOO/-claimed by the appellants / claimants, unfortunate widow and children of deceased Pishadu Ram Baghel, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 24.04.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,35,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal while exonerating the insurer of the offending vehicle Tavera held the driver and owner ofthe Tavera liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal'assessed the S^SBste '•\ . ~ income ofthe deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month Rs.24,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,08,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.27,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,35,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Pishadu Ram Baghel in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,35,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) Shri Varunendra Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,35,000/- only and in exonerating the insurer of the offending vehicle from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants. 5) Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3 HDFC Chubb General Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tavera on the other hand supported the award and contended that as there was no insurance coverage of the offending vehicle Tavera at the time of the accident, the'Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurer of Tavera from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants. ,.f,t3'.PB'''^@^ % '•^"'•"t 4 6) So far as the finding recorded by the Tribunal in para 21 of the impugned award leading to exoneration of the insurer of Tavera from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants is concerned, we gather from the material available on record that the insurance policy issued by HDFC Chubb General Insurance Company Limited on 25.08.2007 was valid for the period from 02.09.2005 to 01.09.2006 and was got cancelled by the owner of the Tavera himself vide endorsement dated 02.09.2005 and the entire amount of premium was refunded to the owner by the Insurance Company. As such, on the date of the accident i.e. 24.04.2006 no insurance policy of the offending vehicle Tavera was in existence. In this view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal leading to exoneration of HDFC Chubb General Insurance Company Limited from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants. In our opinion, the Tribunal, therefore, has rightly held the driver and owner of the offending vehicle Tavera liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 7) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Though the claimants pleaded that deceased Pishadu Ram Baghel used to earn Rs.3,500/- per month by working as Accountant in the organization 'LAMPS', the claimants' witness AW3 N.S. Kurup, Managerof 'LAMPS' proved the income ofthe deceased only to the extent of Rs.2,000/- per month. In this state .^ v'; 'v^-.'ii;.;^, of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessmentof the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. 9) The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.16,000/- per annum by deducting the usual 1/3 of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 10) The multiplier of 13 selected by the Tribunal also cannot be found fault with considering that deceased Pishadu Ram Baghel was shown to be 50 years of age in his postmortem report and the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 prescribes multiplier of 13 for the age group between 46-50 years. 11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. 12) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 13) No order as to costs. - Sd/- g^y_ R.N. Chandrakar subbu