Sintto Beacy IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH MISELLANEOUS APPEAL (C) N0. - ^f "\S OF 2011 (MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 QF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988) APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS 2.. 3. Mahendra Kumar @ Rakesh @ Tikesh Sahtu S/o Radheshyam Sahtu aged about 26 years, R/o-Village - Sankra, Police Station - Nagri, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) (Non-applicant No. 1) [Driver of vehicle Tractor-Trolley bearing registration No. C.G.05/G/0355 & 0356] Radheshyam Sahu, S/o Dhanauram Sahu, aged about 55 years, R/o-Village - Sankra, Police Station - Nagri, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) (Non-applicant No. 2) [Registered owner of vehicle Tractor-Trolley bearing registration No. C.G.05/G/0355 & 0356] VERSUS Mangloo Ram Kanwar, S/o Bodhan Kanwar, aged about 50 years, Smt. Mangtin Bai Kanwar W/o Mangloo Ram Kanwar aged about 45 years, (1 & 2 are Claimants) Both R/o - Village- Jadjada, Police Station- Gariyabandh, District - Raipur. (C.G.) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through, Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Branch Office No. 1, Madina Manjil, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil & District - Raipur ( C.G.) (Non-applicant No. 3) [Insurer of vehicle Tractor-Trolley bearing registration No. C.G.05/G/0355 & 0356] i ^ ^ 1 Appeal Value at - Rs. 2^52,000/- ^ MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 te- ^ ^ w^- L' ~» HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUIVIAR MISHRA. J. M.A. (Cl IPR) No. 1432 of2011 APPELLANTS K^cG Kumar @ Rakesh @ Tikesh Sahtu and another. Versus RESPONDENTS Mangloo Ram Kanwar and others. Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsei for the appeilants. ORAL ORDER (28/06/2011) Heard on I.A. No.1 for condonation ofdelay in filing the appeal. On due consideration, the delay jn filing the appeal is condoned. Heard on admission. This is an appeal by the owner and driver of the tractor and troljey bearing registration No. C.G. 05/G-0355 and C.G.05/G-0356 respectively. Learned Claims Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company from the liabiiity of payment of compensation on the ground that at the time ,of accident the deceased was traveling in the tractor trolley, though there was no sitting capacity for labourer. Learned cpunsel for the appeliants would submjts that extra premium was paid for covering the risk of nve empioyees, therefore, the Insurance Company should have been held liable. Learned Claims Tribunal has discussed this issue in para 17 to 19 of the impugned award and has found that in the registratipn book the sitting capacity is one driver and one deaner and there was no sittlng capacity over and above the said persons. It has been fpund that the labourers were traveling in the tractor/tro!ley, whereas the additional premium was paid to cover employees/labourers who are engaged at the time of Kloading/unloadina. •^1'^ "'•^ i ^ ^ -..,-^J '£^y --^- in the opinion of this Court the finding recorded by the Tribunal is in accordance with law as there is no sitting capacity in a tractor trolley because trolley is not meant for traveling or carrying of passengers. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that the awarded amount is on the hjgher side. The deceased was aged about 20 years and was working as labour. The Tribuna! has considered his income at Rs.100/- per day which comes to Rs.3.000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. Since the claimants are the parents. Learned Claims Tnbunal has applied multipjjer of 10 and has awarded an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- towards loss of income. In the opinion of this Court, the amount under the award is not excessive, rather it is just compensation'. Consequently, the appeal faiis and Is hereby dismissed. l Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge