^ -..s^-sS THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL FC1 N0. ^H4 /2011 MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 APPELLANT INSURER ^^ ^•' €^A ^y^^ ^^ RESPONDENTS :- Claimants The New India Assurance Company Liinited, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, near Zhankar Talkies, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) Through : its Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Conipany Limited, IInd Floor, Raina Trade Centre, opposite Rajeev Plaza, Bus S-tand Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS .* 1. Smt. Rafi'^Unnisha W/o Late Murtuja Khan, aged about 38 years, DRIVER 2. Smt. Saayra Begum, W/o Late Musthufa Khan, aged about 65 years, 3. Ku. Karishma Khan Khodbe, D/o Late Murtuja Khan, aged about 15 years, 4. Aafrid Khan S/o Late Murtuja Khan, aged about 12 years, Respondehts No. 3 & 4 being minor represented through mother Smt. Rafl Unnisha , respondent No.l, All R/o Jian Mandir road, Near Oshwal Bhawan, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.) 5. Gopal Kashyap S/o Raghunath Kashyap, aged about 22 years, occupation Driver, R/o Kumharpara, Shriram Prasad Mukherjee Ward Sanwarapara Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.) *7 ^^^^^^ r^^^,^ ^A ^ ^-•:.:-^-'°:1 f' ^";" •'- •1'"''"' OWNER 6. Bhupendra Singh Rajput S/o B.S. Rajput, R/o Sangam Hotel, State Bank Chowk Main Road, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.) ^ \^ HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BIL/^SPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR.GULAM MINHAJUDDIN. JJ Ap&ellant Respondents Aobellant ftespondents M.A. [c1 No.446/2011 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. ftafi Unnisha & others & M.A. M No.490/2011 Smt. ftafi Unnisha & others Vs (Sopal Kashyop & others Present: . Mr. Saurdbh Sharma, Advocate for the appellant-Insuronce Company. AAr. P.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. for respondent No.l to 4 and the appellants in M-A< (C) No.446/2011 <St 490/11 respectivety. ^; None for the other respondent-bpiver <& Owner in both the appeals. ORDER (Oran (2nd September. 2011) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard on the applications for condonation of delay in preferring both the appeals. 2. For the reasons stated in the applications, we are of the opinion that the delay has been explained satisfactorily and the flpptications deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the applications are allowed and deby in filing the both the appeals is hereby condoned. 3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being heard finally. 4: M.A. (C) Nos.446/2011 filed by tiie appellant-Insurance Company & AA.A. (C) No.490/11 filed by the claimants are being disposed of by this common prder as both these appeals have been preferred against the impugned award dated 07.12.2010 passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (for short the Claims Tribunal') in Ctaim Case No.37/09. ^"<tL f 1 ^ 'f^^^^"-c^ y: '^. ^ \:^y ^ 5. The appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the liability fixed by the Claims Tribunal on it. Whereas, the appellant-claimants have prayed for enhancement of the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 6. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the claimants, who are wife & children of deceased Murtaza Khan, haye filed a chim application under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act, 1988') claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.18,36,000/- for the death of said Murtaza Khan, who died in a road accident which took place on 28.5.2009 when the motorcycle bearing registration number C607-LD- 7825, on which the deceased was returning to his house situate at Jagdalpur, was dashed by the vehicle bearing registration number OftlO-C- 7523, due to rash and ne9ligent driving by its driver, near Village Bhejribadar. The claimants have claimed compensation on the ground that they were dependent on the deceased, who was sole earning member in the family, and due to his death, they have suffep^i loss of income. 7. The Claims Tribunal yide impugned order partially allowed the claim application of the claimants, awarded a sum of fts-5,82,030/- as compensation and fastened liability on the appellant herein to pay 1+ie said amount of compensation to the claimants. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that licence issued to the driver of offending vehicle was found to be fake, thus there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and therefore, the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal is liable to be interfered with. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants has submitt-ed that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is too meager to be sustained , in the facts and circumstances of the case and it deserves to be enhanced suitably, 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have perused the 4 record and the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal. 11. So far as the appeal of the Insurance Company is concerned, we have perused the driving licence available on tbe record oind found that there is an endorsement dated 15.01.2009 in the driving licence to the effect that \A^ the driver is authorized to drive light transport vehicles and the same was duly signed by the Regional Transport Officer, Jagdalpur. However, later on, the said endorsement was cancelled by the Regional Transport Officer, Jagdalpur on 9.6.2009 i-e. after the accident which took place on 28.5.2009, on the ground that due to some clerical mistake said endorsement was made on the licence of the driver. Further, the owner of offending vehicle has stated in his statement that he has not only seen and examined the driving licence produced by the driver but also took test of driving of the driver and found that the driver was competent to drive the vehicle and thereafter only he appointed him as driver of the vehicle in question, In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the vehicle was plied in breach of terms and conditions of the insurcxnce-policy as there was no endorsement authorizing the driver to drive light transport vehicles and as such, owner of the offending v^hicle cannof be held liable. Thus, we are of the opinion that the Claims TrStunal has not committed any illegality or impropriety in absolving owner of the offending vehicle and fastening liability on the appellant Insurance Company. 12.So far as the appeal of the claimoints for enhancement of the amount of compensation is concerned, we have perused the impugned award and found that the Claims Tribunal has not committed any mistake in assessing annual income of the deceased and deducting standard deduction towards expenditure of the deceased. However, multiplier of 8 apptied by the Claims Tribunal is not proper because at the time of accident the deceased was 54 years of age and according to Sarlo Verma (Smt,) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another report-ed in (2009) 6 SCC 121 for . the age group of 50 to 55 years the multiplier of 11 is applicable. Therefore, we propose to assess actual loss of dependency by applying multiplier of 11 to the ainnual income of the decea^d i.e. Rs.70,253/- ^(93671xi), in place of 8, as opplied by the Claims Tribunal, and accordingly, the total loss of dependency wduld come to Rs.7,72,783/- (70,253x11). > Thus, the total compensation for which the claimants would be entitled now is Rs.7,87,783/- (772783+5000+5000+5000) 4 ^r 13.In the result, • AA.A. (c) No.446/11 preferred by the appellcxnt-Insurance Company has no substance, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 9 M.A. (c) No.490/11 preferred by the appellant-claimants is partty allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent that now the cppellaht-claimants shalt be entitled to receive a sum of Ks.7,87,783/- as compensation along with 6% simple interest p.a, from the date of filing of apptication till actual payment is made. ftest of the conditions imposed by the Claims Tribunal shall remain intact ^.5 Roshan/- Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge '"