HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA C J & ‘ HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR J Misc. Appeal No. 814 of 2006 Appellants 1. Amal Haldar @ Amal Samaddar s/o Claimants Banmah Haldar 45 years 2. Sumitra Haldar @ Sumlksh Samaddar, w/o Amal Haldar @ Amal Samadar, 42 years. Both R/o Jamroda, Post Heerapur, v P,S. Umarkote, Dist. Navrangpur (Orissa) VERSUS Respondents 1. Parimal Ojha sfo Manmath Ojha, 22 Non-appiicants 2. Pavitro Gjha, s/o Manmath Ojha, 28 years, Respondent No. 1 and 2 are rlor Orna Camp Aadawal, PostrJagdaIpur, Dist. Bastar C.G. years. 3. The United India Insurance 1: Company through Branéh Manager, United india insurance Company, Anoopma Chowk, Jagdaipur, dist, Bastar C.G. MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1938. Present: Shn Santosh Bharat and Shn Keshav Dewangan counsei for the appellants Shn Dashrath Gupta counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (os'h April, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The unfortunate parents of deceased Ashok Haldar @ Ashok Samaddar are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastard at Jagdalpur, (for short 'the Tribunai’) vide award dated 24.01.2006, passed in Claim Case No.37/2005. ‘ , 2) As against the compensation of Rs.10,40,000/— claimed by the appellants! claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Ashok Haldar @ Ashok Samaddar, by tiling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 28.08.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,52,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that the claimants’ son Ashok Haldar @ Ashok Samaddar died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 28.08.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent drivingk of the motorcyclist of Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.17/J-3020; though the above motorcycle on the dateof the accident was insured with . the United India insurance Company Limited, as the motorcyclist was not holding a vaHd and effective driving iicense and the risk of the pinion—rider was not covered under the insurance Poiicy, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants and the liability in that behalf was that of the owner of the motorcycle. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/— per month and Rs.36,0DO/- per annum. By deducting 2/3“ of Rs.36,000/— towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.12,000/— per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multiplier- of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1v,80;GOO/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.40,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.32,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,52,000/— as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Ashok Haldar @ Ashok Samaddar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,52,000/— @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The Tribunal further directed that in the event of insurer’s failure to recover the amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited by them under ‘no fault liability’ from the owner of the motorcycle, the Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover t the same from the claimants. 5) Shri Santosh Bharat and Shri Keshav Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal \ /"\ it has erred in exonerating the insurer of the motorcycle from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants; in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000l- per annum only; in deducting 2/3” of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,52,000l— only. I x, 6) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 —- The United lndia insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that as respondent No.1 Parimal Ojha, who was driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident was not holding any valid and effective driving license, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurer of the motorcycle. 7) So far as the finding recorded by the Tribunal leading to exoneration of the insurer of the motorcycle from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants is concerned, we gather from the learning license of NAW2 Parimal Ojha (Ex. D/2) that his learning license was valid from 23.01.2004 to 22.07.2004. The unfortunate accident wherein the claimants’ son Ashok Haldar @ Ashok Samaddar lost his life took place on 28.08.2004. We further gather from the evidence of NAW2 Parimal Ojha that he obtained another learning license which was valid from 20.09.2004 to 12.03.2005. Thus, it is apparent that from 22.07.2004,‘the date on which his first learning license expired till 20.09.2004, the date on which he obtained another learning @ license, he was not holding any driving license at all. As such, the breach of the policy conditions is apparent. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding that NAW2 Parimal Ojha who was driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident was not holding a valid and effective driving license and as such the insurer of the mOtorcycle was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 8) So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000[— per annum. Even if 50% of Rs.36,000/— is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammad Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225, and the claimants’ dependency is assessed at Rs.18,000l-; the appropriate multiplier in the case would not be more than 10 in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman (yer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should never exceed 10; by multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/— with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1,80,000/—; by adding further sum 'of Rs.72,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses and other heads, the claimants become entitled to § receive a total sum of Rs.2,52,000/-, the same amount which the ‘Tribunal has awarded cleimants to the under the impugned award. 9) \‘For the foregoing reasons, we do not Find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded 'by the Tribunal. 10) The appeal flied by the. appellants/ claimants for F L enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. V % ’ 11) No order as to costs. pl K j Sd/- Sd/- " i‘ Rangnath Chandrakar I i Chief Justice Judge subbu ii i ifi’ i W i