INZHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUR OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C ^ M. A. ©N0.7:P^/2009 ^ APPELLANT (f)v^ y--Air .».^t^.>, ^'^^v'^ ^•-'" .'3" Raj Kumar, Aged about 47 years, ^ S/o Pitamber singh Sahu R/o- Village - Basantpur, Police station - Pendra, Disstt - Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS NON-APPELLANTS: ^ 2. ^ Oivision Bsndl Tribhuwan singh, Aged about 32 years, S/o Gore lal, R/o-Viilage-Girari, Police station - Pendra, Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.) {DRIVER} The Oriental Insurance company Ltd. Through: Branch Manager Office at: Rama tread center First floor, Opp: Rajiv Plaza, Bilaspur. 3., 4./ 5."} Smt Chameli Bai, Aged about 20 years, W/o Late Tika ram Rai singh, Aged about 50 years. S/o late Jageshwar, Smt. Tulsi Bai, Aged about 45 years, W/o Rai sSngh, Respondent no 3 to 5 are the claimants and they presently residing Village - Girari, Police station - Pendra, Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.) MEMO OFAPPEAL UNDER SECnON 173 OF MOTER ACCIDENTVEHICLE ACT. 1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DB; HON'BLB I.M. QUDDUSI SB HON*BLE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ M. A JC\ No. 977 of2009 Vs. RESPQNDENTS Tribhuwaa Smgh aad ofhers APPEAL UNDER SBCTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 APPBARANCE Mr. Hemaat Gupta, counsel for fhe appeUaat. Mr. A. K. Aflialey, counsel for respondent No. 2. Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, counsel for respondents 3 to 5. ORDBR(ORALt (31.03.2011) Per I.M. QUDDUSI, J. (11 This appeal has been filed by tlie owner of the offending vehicle agaiast fhe impugned award dated 08.04.2009 passed by fhe Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Pendra Road, Distdct Bilaspur (C.G) in Claim Case No. 17/2008 so far as it relates to fhe UabiUty fixed upou fhe appellaat as well as fhe quaiittim part ofthe award. (2) Bneffacts offhe case, as alleged by the claimaats, are fhat on 21.01.2008 deceased Tikaram was staadmg aad talkmg witli his wife and brofher-in-law on fhe side of fhe road at village Aanidaad Dogratola. At ftiat time, one Tractor bearing Regn. No.lO-A/2667 aad the attached TroUey No<C,G.10-A/2668 which was being driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negUgent raaaner dashed Tikarani, as a result of which, he sustaiaed grievous injuries on his head and ofher parts of the body aad died on fhe spot. At fhe tioie of accident, fhe deceased was aged about 25 years. He was workiag as Head-Mason aiid was earamg Rs.4500/- per month. Besides fhis, he was also eai'amg Rs.40,000/- per aanum by domg agricultiiral works. The claimaiits bemg APPELLANT Raj Kuiiiar ..^c ^ i i I ^Sifi @) dependents/legal representatives have filed claun petition for the award of compensation to fhe tiine ofRs.41,10,000/- on vadous heads ia Ueu ofsudden death oftiie deceased. (3) The leamed claims Tribunal has held fhat on 21.01.2008, respondent no. 1 who was driving fhe said Tractor TroUey ia a rash and negUgent m-aaner caused the accident to Tikaram aiid consequenUy he died and there was breach ofconditions of fhe insurance poUcy. The Tribunal has awarded a total coinpensation of Rs.4,14,000/- which the clamiaats are entifled to receive from owner and driver i.e., appeUaat and respondent no. 1. (41 We have heard leamed counsel for the parties aad have also gone throiigh fhe records of fhe Tribunal. The Tribzmal has come to conclusion fhat on the date of accident, deceased has gone to work on fhe said Tractor for loadin^g the sand aad while retumuig, fhe deceased feU down froxn the Tractor aad died due to rash aad negUgent drivuig of respondent no.l, Therefore, we are of fhe opiaion fhat after loadiag the saiid on TroUey, fhe deceased was travelling on Tractor- TroUey where fhere was no sitting capacity. No extra preimura was paid for tiie labourers. The deceased feU down froni the Tractor and his head was crushed by fhe wheel of Tractor. In such circunistances, fhere was clearly breach of conditions of fhe insuraiice poUcy, Hence, the Tribunal has not held the Insurao.ee Company Uable to pay conipensation. We see no good ground to iaterfere in fhe impugned award as when fhe Insuraace Coiapany is not Uable to pay coinpensation; it becoiaes the Uability of fhe owner as the victim io. aay case has to get fhe conipensatioii. iii (5) Witibi regard to quaatuin part, we have seen tih.at the Tribunal has assessed tiie iaconie of fhe deceased as Rs.3000/- per inonfh aad Rs.36,000/- per aiinziin which does not caU for interference. As he was miarded person, l/3Id has rightly been deducted froni his aanual iaconie towards personal aad Uviag expenses aad the com.pensation has beeu fixed treatmg the rexnaiuder as aanual loss of dependency that is Rs.24,000/- aiid further considermg the age offhe deceased y € as 25, years, the Tribunal has appUed multipUer 17 which is not on higher side. Therefore, fhe total loss of dependency was worked out to Rs.4,08,000/- (24,000 x 17). Besides this, the Tribunal has graated reasonable aniounts i.e., Rs.4,000/- for loss of consortium aad Rs.2000/" for funeral expenses which m aU comes to Rs.6000/- under ofher heads. Thus fhe Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,14,000/- wliich seems to be not on higher side. Therefore, it caiinot be said th.at tiie amount of coinpensation graated by fhe Tnbuiial is excessive. (6| In view of the above, bofh tlie conteutions of fhe leanied counsel for fhe appellaiit fail aad the appeal is, fherefore, disniissed. No order as to costfs). ———— Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge