' ,A , ^l^ /-Q^U-^, ...c^ ^l'-' ,<i(' •^vl^' .' '.^•lf-'SV ;..,,-l«ap s^^^s^ c< /'/ ?, •r: ^ IN THE HIGH COITRT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHAmSGARH M.A. (c|No.y •^ /2009 ^fiw •'": ;li a y' • APPELLANTS 1. Dayalal Kanwar S/o Late Amarsingh AppUcants Kanwar, Aged about 50 years, 2. Sint. Dandai Bai W/o Dayalal Kanwar Aged about 45 years, Both R/o Village O.unrai, Kartla, Korba, C.G. VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Pardehsi S/o not known (Driver) Non-applicants -/ R/o Sendripali, , Kartla, Korba.C.G {Driver ofVehicle bearing No, C.G.-12/8627} (?—2. DeokumariD/o Piluram Kanwar, '> R/o Ounrai, Kartla, Korba, C.G. {Owner ofVehicle bearing No. C.G.- 12/8627} 3. Branch Manager The.New India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch office T.P. Nagar, Korba, C.G. MISC. APPEAL U/S.ATS^TLTHEMQTQRVEmCLEACT, sl<. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATHCHANDRAKAR, J, Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 254 of 2009 Appellants Applicants Respondents Non-applicants 1. Dayalal Kanwar s/o late Amarsingh Kanwar, aged about 50 years, 2. Smt. Dandai Bai w/o Dayalal Kanwar aged about 45 years, Both r/o village Ounrai, Kartla, Korba, C.G. VERSUS 1. Pardehsi s/o not known (driver) R/o Sendripali, Kartla, Korba, C.G. (Driver of vehicle bearing No. C.G. 12/8627) 2. Deokumari d/o Piluram Kanwar, r/o Ounrai, Kartla, Korba, C.G. (Owner of vehicle bearing No.C.G. 12/8627) 3. Branch Manager, the New India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office T.P. Nagar, Korba, C.G. IVIemo of appeal under Section 173 of IVIotor Vehicle Act Present: Shri R.K. Jain, counsel for the appellants. Shri P.K. Patel and Shri Govind Dewangan, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. ^ ORDER ith (30InNovember,2011) M.A.C. No. 254 of 2009 ^ The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.12.2008, passed in Claim Case No.83/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.21,80,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Hira Singh, by filing a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 07.11.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date offiling ofthe 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 Hira Singh died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 07.11.2005 involving the Tractor-Trolley bearing registration . Nos.C.G.-l 2/8626 and C.G.-12/8627; as the Trolley was not insured and no extra premium was paid by the owner of the Tractor-Trolley for covering the risk of the persons travelling in the Tractor-Trolley, the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants and the liability in that behalf was of the owner and driver of the Tractor-Trolley. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,250/- per month and Rs.27,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.27,000/- towards the personal expenses of the M.A.C.No. 254 of 2009 deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.18,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,34,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.16,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,50.000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Hira Singh in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri R.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in exonerating the insurer of the Tractor- Trolley from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants; in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.2,250/- per month and Rs.27,000/- per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 13; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- only. 6) Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the Tractor, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the Trolley in which the deceased was travelling at the time of the accident was not insured with respondent - insurance company, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants. 1.A.C. No. 254 of 2009 4A 7) Shri P.K. Patel and Shri Govind Dewangan, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Deokumari, the owner of the Tractor- Trolley, on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal has erred in exonerating the insurer of the Tractor- Trolley and in holding the owner and driver of the Tractor- Trolley liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 8) So far as the finding recorded by the Tribunal leading to exoneration of the insurer ofthe Tractor- Trolley is concerned, we gather from para 16 of the award that the Trolley involved in the accident was not insured with any insurance company, much less with the New India Insurance Company. That apart, it is apparent from the insurance policy produced before the Tribunal that no extra premium was paid by the owner of the Tractor- Trolley for covering the risk of the persons travelling in the Tractor- Trolley. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the above finding recorded by the Tribunal leading to exoneration of the insurance company. 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of . Rs.2,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that their son Hira Singh used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month as agricultural labour, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.5,000/- per month. It is a matter of common knowledge that agricultural labourers do not get work round the year in the villages. We, therefore, do not MAC.No. 254 of 2009 find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal on its own estimate at Rs.2,250/- per month and Rs.27,000/- per annum. 11) The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3 of Rs.27.000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased considering that deceased Hira Singh on the date of the accident was unmarried and in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. 12) The multiplier of 13 selected by the Tribunal is also on the higher side as the claimants are parents of the deceased and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer 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 neverexceed 10. 13) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected. ^D I.A.C.No. 254 of 2009 ^ 14) The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 15) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sdl- R.N. Chandrakar .ludge subbu ^-•^