IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHEATTISGARH AT BILASPUR @«Q \A Cc,“ y; r Misc. Appeal {C} No. 1 giL-Qggs mViSmH Egimm APPELLANT RESPONDENTS l) 5) Bajaj Allianz Genera1 Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Faguram S/o Late Balram Chandrakar aged about 44 years, Indrani Bai W/o Faguram Chandrakar aged about 41 years, Ku. Parvati Bai D/o Faguram Chandrakar aged about 17 years, Satish Kumar S/o Faguram Chandrakar aged about 13 years, Respondent no. 3 8r, 4 minor represented through natural guardian Father Shri Faguram Chandrakar, All R/o Village Keshalikala, Police Chowki Fasterpur, Thana & Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Present Address :— Village Kunda, Tahsil—Pandaria, District Kabirdham (C.G.) (CLAIMANTS) Abbu Bakar S/o Maqbul Ahmed, aged about 56 years, R/o Village 8L Thana Kunda, Tahsil - Pandaria, District Kabirdham (C.G.)) [DRIVER OF BUS NO. C.G. 04(E 01241 Abbu Mazhar S/o Abbu Bakar, aged about 24 years, R/o Village & Thana Kunda, Tahsil — Pandaria, District Kabirdham (C.G.n (OWNER OF BUs No. C.G. o4/E 0124) M MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 As AMENDED BY ACT OF 1994.,7._w, .o“‘.N_....,.‘mu./.“..H H!§E gOQRT QF C HATTISGAEH, BILA§PLJR CORAM: Hon’ble Shri LM. Quddusi, J. & Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. MA, (C) No. 1321 of 2Q08 Shri 8.5. Rajput. counsel for the appeuant. Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava and Shri Tarun Danséna, counsel for respondents No. 5 & 6. ORAL QRDER ( 0510412011 ) FoHowing oral order of the Court was passed by L Ma Quddusi. J. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 16/07/2008 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunai, Mungeii, District- Bilaspur in Ciaim Case No. 8512007 on the ground of quantum as weli as iiabiiity. (2) Brief facts of the case. as per the version of the claimants, are that ciaimants are father, mother, sister and brother of deceased Mangai Chandrakar. On 23/10/2007 at about 9.00 am. deceased Mangai Chandrakar aiong with his brother-in-iaw Vijay Kumar were coming to vitiage Kunda from Makri in motorcycle. Vijay Kumar was sitting in motorcycle as pillion-rider. Motorcycle was being driven on the left side of the road in a moderate speed by deceased Mangal Chandrakar, then bus bearing registration No. C,G.O4-E/O124 coming from Makri being driven rashly and negligently by non-applicant No.1 dashed the motorcycle from wrong side and caused the accident and head of Mangal Chandrakar was crushed under the wheels of the bus, as a result of which he died on the APPELLANT Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Ccmpany Limited. Versus RESPONDENTS Faguram and others. spot. Deceased was aged about 23 years and was havihg Tailoring Shop in Kunda Bus Stand. He used to earn Rs,7.000/- per month by tailoring work. Claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.19.30.000/-. (3) First of all, we shall examine quantum as the appellant has got permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The deceased was a bachelor aged about 23 years. Average age of his parent's comes to 42.5 i.e. 43 years. His monthly income as assessed by the Tribunal is Rs. 3500/. Thus, annual income comes to Rs.42.000/-. 50% is liable to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses, the remainder comes to Rs.21 ,000/-. Considering the age of the parents a multiplier of 14 would be applicable as laid down in the matter of Sarla Verma (Sum) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another. reported in (2009) 6 S.C.C. 127. Thus, total loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,94,000/—. Besides this the claimants would be entitled to get Rs.5,000/— each for loss of love and affection i.e. in ail Rs.20,000l~, Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.5.000/- for loss of estate, the total comes to Rs.30.000/- over other heads. After adding this amount towards loss of dependency the total compensation comes to Rs.3.24.000/-, therefore. the quantum awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be reduced to that of Rs.3,24,000/~. (4) With regard to the liability part, we have seen that the driver was driving the Mini Bus i.e. Passenger Carrying Vehiclei‘rransport Vehicle, but he was having driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle and Heavy Goods Vehicle. he was not having driving licence to drive Passenger Carrying Vehicle i.e. Transport Vehicle, therefore, the insurance Company could not have been held liable to pay compensation as there was breach of condition of insurance policy. V .. Wv-,w w WWW..........‘.W w w M» w (5) In View of the above, we allow this appeal and 3et-aslde that part of the impugned award by which liability has been imposed upan the Insurance Company/appellant and excessive amount of compensation has been fixed. However, the amount of compensation Rs.3,24,000/- can be recovered from the owner of the vehicle by the claimants. The impugned award is modified to the above extent. The remaining part of the award shall remain intact. However, penal interest imposed @ 9% is also not proper. the same is also set-aside. The ciaimants would be entitled to get V simple interest @ 7% per annum from the date of tiling of the claim petition till its payment is made. The amount which has been deposited by the appellant shall be allowed to be withdrawn. M A Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge War Sd/- Prashant kumar Mishra Judge