1& HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR MISC. APPEAL ( C )No, 14^7 OF 2009 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS 5. 6. Ram Prasad Gupta, S/o Jugal Kishor, aged about 55 years, R/o village Seoni, Police Station and Tahsil Manvahi, District Bilaspur (CG) Versus Munnibai w/o late Rajpal, aged about 19 years, Pooja D/o late Rajpal, aged about 2 years, minor through natural guardian mother Munni Bai Lal Singh s/oKansram, aged about 38 years Gangiya Bai S/o Lalsingh aged about 35 years All residents of village Devgaon, Police Station Marwahi, Tahsil Marwahi Distt. Bilaspur (CG) Respondent No. 1 to 4 claimants Ram Khilawan S/o Jugal Kishore aged about 60 years, R/o village Seoni Police Station and Tahsil Marwahi, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) Ashok Kumar S/o Chandrabhan, aged about 20 years, R/o village Devgaon Police Station and Tahsil Marwahi, Distt. Bilaspur CG (Non-applicant No. 3) Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur CG Non-applicant No. 4. h»^ SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J. PRESENT.- Shri Rakesh Pandey, Adv. for the appellant. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, Adv. for respondent No. 7. ORAL ORDER (8-4-2010) Per N.K. Aearwal, J 1. This is owner's appeal filed against the award dated 24-7- 2009 passed in Claim Case No. 8/2008 by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Pendraroad whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs. 2,36,345/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till its payment holding the appellant liable for its payraent. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- 3. On 15-1-2007 when the deceased was sitting in the tractor No. CG 10-4765 and trolley No. CG 10-4766 as a labourer, the said tractor trolley turned turtle and deceased Rajpal aged 21 years, succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. 4. The claimants i.e. widow, minor children and parents of the deceased have filed claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming Rs. 19,30,000/- as compensation against the driver, owner and the insurer of the said tractor trolley. 5. The appellant in his written statement took a specific plea that the deceased was not working as labourer in the tractor and he was in fact standing nearby the tractor trolley when the accident occurred and, therefore, the insurance company is liable to compensate claimants. 6. The Insurance Company by filing its written statement denied its liability and pleaded that as the deceased was sitting in the tractor trolley and as the trolley is not meant for sitting of passengers/labourers, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 7. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, material placed and submissions made held the driver of the tractor and trolley responsible for the said accident; assessed the amount of compensation as 2,36,345/- by applying provisions ofWorkman's Compensation Act, 1923; held, deceased was sitting in the trolley in breach of condition of policy and exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation, however, a direction has been issued by the Tribunal to the Insurance Company to pay first to the claimants and then recover it from the appellant/owner ofthe vehicle. 8. Shri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that learned Tribunal has erred in ^^ 1 exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability to pay conipensation inasmuch as the deceased was not sitting in the trolley at the time of accident. He would further contend that learned Tribunal went wrong in assessing the amount of compensation by applying the formula which is applicable under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the Tribunal as also the impugned award. 10. A bare perusal of the written statement filed by the appellant would reveal that the appellant had taken a specific plea that the deceased was not employed by him as a labourer in the tractor and was standing nearby the tractor at the time of accident, whereas in the evidence he has admitted that on the date of accident the deceased was working as labourer in the tractor. As per appellant's evidence, the labourers are being employed by his driver. The driver of the tractor Ashok Kumar on the contrary has deposed that the deceased was working in the tractor as a labourer and was employed by the owner of the vehicle. The claimants in their claim application have pleaded that the deceased was working as labourer in the tractor and was sitting in the tractor at the time of accident. The eye- witness examined by the claimant namely Samman Singh has also deposed that the deceased was sitting in the tractor at the time of accident. 11. In view of above evidence adduced by the driver, owner and eye-witness, it cannot be inferred that the deceased was not sitting in the trolley at the time of accident. Therefore, the first contention raised by Shri Pandey is sans merit. 12. So far as other contention raised is concerned, even if the compensation is calculated by taking into consideration the income as assessed by the Tribunal and by deducting l/3rd of it towards personal expenses of the deceased and then if multiplied by multiplier of 18 as the deceased was aged ab'out 21 years of age, the amount on account of loss of dependency would be much more than the amount ":^ t, %tfa-llil 1 '^- e^^' awarded by the Tribunal. In such a situation, the above contention raised is also sans substance. 13. In view of above, I do not find any substance in the appeal preferred by the appellant. 14. The appeal being without substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 15. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge