e Bench TISG ” ’ ! 0 MISC. APPEAL No. OF 205 ”I (APPEAL VALUED AT Rs .20, 000/-> APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Ngtional Insurance Company DN‘APPLICANT No.4) Limited, Through: Its Branch Raipur Manager, G . E . Road,‘ ‘ (C.G.). V? VERSUS REs‘PONDENTs z @P‘ELICANTY‘ f$,.@yWV; / Satnami S/o— aged 40 years P.Q., P . S . &Tahsil—Balauda (C .G .) Nanhu Ram Tamalu Satnami , (3" R/o-village—Karmandi Raval'l Bazar Distt.—Raipur (NON—APPLICANT No.1) 2.Santosh Kumar Agrawal aged 32 g years S/o Kailash chan Agrawal R/G-Balaji Tra Barsana ,VP.'S.VBasanaV, Distt.-— Mahasamund (C.G.) (owner of truck no. C.G.—4/ZC/4325) NO.2) ' .Gautam Meshram S/o Ramj' $ Meshram, aged 4O years, R/o— ViiIageBhilevada, P . S r _&.Di_stt . Bhandara (Maharasvtra)-(Drive of truck no.C.G. 04/G0665) (NON—APPLICANT i r / 4.4Guruprit Singh Multani S/O— Shri Kulwant Singh Multani R/o—G.E,Road Teliban‘dha’, P.S'.Telibandha, Distt.- Raipur (C.'G.) (owner of truck ho.C.G.04G/0665) (NON—APPLICANT NO . 3) Being aggrieved by the award datedl6‘.’5%.2005,‘ gassed by Shri‘ M.S‘. Kerkatta, \find adoitional Motor “ Singi [N THE HIGH COURT OF IUDICATURE AT BMSPUR CHHAT /V d n ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR \ 1’ V M. A. No. 1158 of 2005 \ Appellarit - National Insurance Company Limited Versus Respondents Mangatu 85 others \ ‘ M. A. No. 1178 of 2005' i i I i ‘* .‘ M. A. No. 1 179 of zoos i Appellant Versus Respondents ‘ Gariba Ram 82; others National Insurance Company Limited DB: Hon’ble Dr. Justice l. M. Quddusi I E ‘. 85 Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Minhajuddin l l Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate for the appellant/Insurance Company. Shri Shivendu Pandya, Advocate for the claimants. None for the other respondents. wt i o R D E R (Oral) f (Passed on this 13th day of December, 201 1) Per‘Dr.‘ I. M. Quddusi, J. The aforementioned three appeals (M. A. Nos. 1158, 1178 and 1179 of 2005) are being decided by this common order as they arise out of the common award dated 16.6.2005 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar in Claim Case Nos. 91, lO’Z and 159 of 2004. Brief facts, in nutshell are that on 28.5.2004 Biselal, Gariba and Nanhu were going by the Truck, bearing registration No. C.G. O4— G/0665 (first truck) from village — Sakra to Raipur. On the way, near a..i.__.n:L;u‘J I Appellant National Insurance Company Limited Versus Responctents Nanhu Ram Satnami 8L others And village — Kohrakit another Truck, bearing registration No. C.G. O4— ZC/4325 (second tmck), coming from the opposite direction, dashed the; first truck, due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of i thei second truck. In that accident all the three persons namely Bislelal, Gariba Rain‘ and Nanhu Ram Satnami received grievous injuries and Biselal succumbed to those injuries. The non—applicant No.2 (GQutam Meshram) is the driver and the non—applicant No. 3 (Gurprit Singh Multani) is the owner of the Truck Nol C.G. O4/G/O665, Whereas the non—applicant No. 1 (Santosh Kuh'l'ar Agarwal) is owner of the Truck No, C.G. O4 ZC/4325 and its driver (Naresh Das) also died in the same accident. However, the present appellant/Insurance Company is the insurer of both the truEcks. The offence relating to the accident was registered at Crime Nol 142/2004 in the Police Station — Pithora under Sections 279, 337, l 338 and 304—A of the Indian Penal Code. Thje legal heirs/dependents of deceased Biselal filed Claim Case Nor. 91/2004 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 11,50,000/{Wvherein learned Claims Tribunal, by the impugned award has awarded a total sum of Rsi. 5,10,672/— along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the application i.e. 23.7.2004. Being aggrieved the appellant/ Insurance Company has filed the M. Ai No. 1158/2005. The injured/claimant Nanhu Ram Satnami filed Claim Case No. 159/2004 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for aWard of a total compensation of Rs. 1,70,000/—, wherein learned Claims Tribunal, by the impugned award has awarded a total sum of Rs‘. 20,000/— along with interest @'9'% per annum from the date of the ) l ‘ apjplication i.e. 28.10.2004. Being aggrieved the appellant/Insurance Cpmpany has filed the M .A. No. 1178/2005. 1 The injured/claimant Gariba Ram Satnami filed Claim Case No. I 107/2004 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for aWard of a total compensation of Rs. 4,10,000/—, wherein learned C‘laims Tribunal, by the impugned award has awarded a total sum of J Rs. 50,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annurn from the date of the alailplication i.e. 6.8.2004. Being aggrieved the appellant/Insurance company has filed the M. A. No. 1179/2005. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the lower Court record. Learned counsel Iappearing for the appellant/ Insurance Company l submits that the permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Ac§t has been granted by the Tribunal. l It 'is evident that there was head on collision and the finding of the Tribunal fastening liability on the Insurance Company because of the reason that the deceased was traveling in the goods‘vehicle — Truck No. C.G. O4—G/0665 is over ruled and the award is modified to the extent that the deceased was a third party in respect of the other vehicle Truck No. C.G. 04 ZC/4325 which collided with it and as such the insurance company of this vehicle (Truck No. C.G. O4 ZC/4325) is responsible to pay compensation treating that there was contributory negligence on the part of driver of the Truck C.G.O4—G/O665 in which the deceased and two injured persons were traveling and its contributory negligence’was 50%. As the deceased and two injured persons were traveling in‘ the goods vehicle beyond the seating capacity, we feel that there was breach of conditions of the insurance policy and hence the insurance company is ‘not liable to pay the x ‘\,\~\mm E?~’I 77 comjpensation of goods vehicle No. C,G. 04/0665 and therefore the awaM is modified to the extent that the liability of the appellant as i ins rer of other vehicle Truck No. C.G. O4 ZC/4325 would be 50% U and the remaining 50% would be realized by the claimants from the owner of the vehicle Truck No. C.G. 04/ 0665. With respect to quantum in Claim Case No. 91/2004 — M.A. No. 1158/2005 — in para — 2O of the impugned award the assessment made by learned Claims Tribunal is that the yearly income of the deceased was Rs. 32,500/1. To our opinion 1/4 should have been deducted from the yearly income assessed by the Tribunal towards the ‘personal and‘ living expenses of the deceased in view of the deciision of Hon’ble‘ $upreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anotherl and therefore l i l accdrding to us the yearly loss of dependency ”comes to Rs. 24,375/—. After using the multiplier of 16 the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,90,000/-. In addition to that, we’ award Rs. l0,000/— for loss of estate, Rs. l0,000/— for loss of love and affection anQBs. 5000/— for funeral expenses, the total of which comes to Rs. 25,000/—. Thus, instead of Rs. 5,10,672/-, we hold that the claimants are entitled to ,v get a total sum of Rs. 4,15,000/— along with interest @ 9% from the date of the application in the ratio of 50% — 50% from the insurance company of Truck No. C.G. O4 ZC/4325 and the owner of the Truck No. C.G. 04/0665. I With respect to the quantum in Claim Case No. 107/2004 — M. A. No. 1178/2005 we have notrfind any scope for interference, except that the‘claimant is entitled to get the amount of compensation of r @ 9% from the date of the application in Rs. 20,000/- with interest 1 (2009)6 SCC 121 «MW , 7:5,"-..u." Mr“ ..w~“.k¢w u 7% thé ratio of 50% — 50% from the insurance company of Truck No. C.G. O4 §ZC/4325 and the owner of the Truck No. C.G. 04/0665. With respect to the quantum in Claim Case No. 159/2004 — M. A. No. 1179/2005 we reduce Rs. 25,000/— and award only Rs‘ 25,000/- towards treatment and mental agony. Thus the claimant is entitled to get the amount of compensation of Rs. 25,000/— with interest @ 9% from the date of the application in the ratio of 50% — 50% from the insiurance company of Truck No. CIG. O4 ZC/4325 and the owner of the Truck No. C.G. 04/0665. In View of the above all the three appeals are allowed in part. It is held that the insurance company of Truck No. C.G. O4 ZC/4325 and the owner of the Tfuck No. C.G. 04/0665 shall bear the amount of compensation in all the three claim cases at the ratio of 50% - 50%. The respective claimants shall claim rest of the 50% amount awarded to them from the owner of the vehicle Truck No. C.G. 04/0665. v \ ‘ ‘ l l l No order as to costs. a ed] ll Sd/- ‘2‘»? LMflut-idusi 1 G. Minhajuddin I t”. i Judge Judge