-® IN THE^DGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR(C.G.-) M.A.(C)No..S.y-<</ OF 2006 rAPPEAL VALUED AT Rs 3.31.000 /-) APPEAL UNDER.SECTION173 OF THE MOTORVEmCLESACT. 1988. 1 APPELLANT (NON-APPLICANT N0.3) RESPONDENTS (APPLICANTNO.l) (APPLICANT N0.2) The New India 'Assurance Company Limited, Through: Its, Divisional Manager, Divisional-Office No.II, R.D.A. Building, Bajrang Market, G.E.Road, Raipur VERSUS :1. C Smt. Amrika Bai Dewangan w/0 ^- Late Shri Doctor Ram @ Punit Ram Dewangan, aged -35 years, :2. ^ Dhaasai Dewanganl S/0- Late Shri Dopctor Ram @ Punit Ram Dewangan, Aged- 13 Years, (APPLICANTN0.3) :3. (APPLICANTN0.4) (NON-APPLICANTNO.l) :5. Shiv Kuinar Dewangan S/0- Late Shri Dopctor Ram @ Punit Ram Dewangan, Aged- 11 Years, :4. ^. Ku. Aanju Dewangan, D/0- Late Shri Dopctor Ram @ Punit Ram Dewangan, Aged- 10 Years, [Respondent no.2-4, are minor, through their Mother-Smt. . fimrika Bai(respondent no.1) All are R/0- Sarvodays Nagar Pachpedi Naka, P.S.-Tikarapara, Raipur, Tah.7 Distt.-Raipur (fc.G.) •t^l-rri s- AaiaKhan S/0- Ibrahim Khan, --Aged- 25 years. .R/O-Near Tikarapara, Raipur, Tah.s Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) ^'sfa (NON-APPLICANTN0.2) :6:- Raj Kumar Ranchdani, 8/0- Shri -Bhagwan ^g^ADaa Ranchdani, R/o- In firont^ 6f bajrang Mandir , Panito^i Ipr ^ ?a f.w. 'ff^: • (" iy> 0 p- tfli-r ? rt W 1-- .1. K. w b" &1 'i i-1"s "'?. --< HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. fC) No. 603 of 2006 Appellant The New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Respondents Smt. Amrika Bai Dewangan & others APPEAL UNDER SECTIONJ_73 OFTHE MOTOR VEHICLES_ACT, 19^88 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Even in the second call, none appears for the respondents. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 5th day ofJanuary, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company on the ground of liability as well as on quantum against the impugned award dated 22.6.2006, passed by the 8thAdditional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Raipur in Claim Case No. 59/2005, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,31,OOO/-. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the lower Court record as well as the findings given in the impugned award. 3. , Brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 24.2.2005 deceased Doctor Ram alias Punitram Dewangan.was going from Raipur Devpuri Corporation Limited to Dhamtari, as an employee, on Metadoor, bearing regista-ation No. C.G. 04 ZB/1486. At about 3 p.m. when the vehicle reached near village Dandesara, due to the rash and negligent driving of the non-applicant No.l the vehicle tumed turtle. In that accident Doctor Ram alias Punitram Dewangan 7. received grievous injuries and later on died during the treatment. The offence of the incident was registered at Crime No. 76/05 at Police Station Kurud under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The claimants, being legal heirs of the deceased, filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation ofRs. 12,25,OOO/- under various heads. Learned Claims Tribunal, having regard to the facts and evidence on record held that the claimants are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,31,000/-. The claim petition was filed on 16.8.2005, however, as the claimants did not take prompt steps to summon the non-applicant No.S/Insurance Company, learned Clairas Tribunal has directed that the claimants are entitled to get interest on the amount of compensation w.e.f. from 1.12.2005 at the rate of 9% p.a. We have perused the insurance policy in which owner/driver along with one employee is covered. Besides this, in the policy a note has been mentioned regarding the persons and class of persons entitled to drive the vehicle i.e. "Any person including insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. Provided also that the person holding an effective Learner's Licence may also drive the vehicle and such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989". It was not proved by the Insyrance Company that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence. In the absence of the same it cannot be said that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence. Besides this, since the policy is covered for WC to employee, it has not been specified that the 'WC to employee' denotes only for driver, as 'owner cum driver' is also separately covered under the policy. Meaning thereby, the owner of the vehicle, driving the vehicle, is covered under the policy up to the claim of Rs. 2,00,000/- and any person holding the valid and effective driving lieence is authorized to drive the vehicle. Therefore, as the deceased was the employee hence he was covered under the policy. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitfed that it has come in evidence that there were seven persons traveling in the yehicle - Metadoor but in our opinion although the policy will not be applicable to seven persons but would be certainly applicable to the employee, who is the deceased, in the instant matter. 9. With regard to the quantum we have seen that the deceased was aged about 40 years. His annual income has been assessed as Rs. 24,000/- per annum. After deducting l/3rd towards personal and living expenses and applying the multiplier of 16 the total compensation towards loss of dependency has been granted by the Tribunal as Rs. 2,56,000/-. In accordance with the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofSarla Venna (Stnt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another1 niultiplier of 15 is applicable between the age of 36 to 40 years. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the multiplier of 16 has wrongly been applied by the Tribunal in the present case. Thus, after making l/3rd standard d'eductions from the annual income (2009)6 SCC 121 ^ t 4 of the deceased and applying the multiplier of 15, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2,40,000/-. 10. The Tribunal has also committed an error in awarding Rs. 10,000/- to the claimants towards funeral expenses. Therefore, we assess following amount towards other heads i.e. Rs. 5000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 5000/- each to three children for loss of love and affection (total Rs. 15,000/-) and Rs. 10,000/- for loss of estate, the total of which comes to Rs. 40,000/-. Thus, we award a total sum of Rs. 2,80,000/- a compensation to the claimants towards loss of dependency and other heads. 11. We feel that the award of interest at the rate of 9% per annum is excessive and in our opinion the Tribunal should have awarded the simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Thus, we direct that the claimants are entitled to get simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum w.e.f. 1.12.2005. 12. The amount of compensation and levy of rate of interest is reduced to the above extent. Rest of the conditions of the award shall remain intact. 13. The appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. No order as to costs. ,. 14. If the amount awarded by the Tribunal has been paid it will be open for the Insurance Company to recover back the difference of amount _ SA'- l.M.Qnddusl Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Thakur 1