aD IN THE HIGH COURT OF CIIHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (C) No. \^\°\/20^ APPELLANT Defendant No.3 ...\.').^'l&>^ ^^•^.^^'•' ^6d^^""":;Versus- ^^••OCUB' .B RESPONDENT Claimant No. 1 RESPONDENT Claimant No.2 ^ > RESPONDENT Defendant No.l 3. •^ RESPQNDENT , Defendant No.2 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Sattigudi Chowk, Raigarh, through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, in front of Rajeev Plaza, Bilaspur (C.G.). Shri Dhan Singh, 50 years, S/o Shri Ramesh, Occupation-Agriculh;ire Smfc. Mala Bai, 45 years, W/o Shri Dhan Singh, Occupation-Housewife. Both by caste - Agharia, R/o Village - Kurrubhata, Police StatioTi" Bhoopdeopur, Tahsil - Kharasia, District - Raigarh (C.G.) Shri Ram Kumar, aged about 23 years, S/o Shri Macro, Caste -- Yadav, R/o Village ~ Kurrubhata, Police Station- Bhoopdeopur, Tahsil -- Kharasia, District- Raigarh (C.G.) -Driver- Shri Sunderlal, aged about 45 years, S/o Shri Girjaram, Caste - Patel, R/o Village - Sendripali, Police Station" Kharasia, District- Raigarh (C.G.) -Owner- f"? ^-r" APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MQTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988. HX6H COURT OF CH(-MTTIS6^RH AT MUI^yB bIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QU&&USI & HON'BLE MR. 6HULAM MINHAJU&DIN^I^ Aitpellant Resoondmts M.A. (c1 No.1409/2008 The New Indki Asairance Co. Ltd. Vs 5hri Dhom Sin^i A others Present; Mr- Shaitendra Sharnro, Advocate far Ifie oppellant. Mr. ftoop Nouk, Advocate foi* respondents No*l <& 2. Mr, J.A. Lohani, Advocate for reapondents No.3 & 4. OR&ER (OniO (14th Juna. 2011) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. The appeltant-Insurance Company has fited this miscellaneous appcal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 (for short the Act^) ogainst the award dated 26.4.2007 passed by teamed ist Addittonal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (C6) (for short %e Claims Tribunal') m Ctaim Case No.29/2006 part-ly allowing claim of theclatmants and fastening Ikxbility to pay compensatjon on the cypelkint-Insunince Compnny. 3. Permission uncter Section 170 of the Act h<is been gronted to <rti®oppellant Insurance Company. 4. Facts of Itie case, in brief. are that on 14.10.2005 -rtie deoeased had gone to the agricultural field of the non-opplicant No.l in the tructor-trolley in question to reoy the crop, After finishhg the agricultural wor|<, 1+ie deceased along with others had gone to Chduidrdiasini Tempte for daf'^em of Devi in the tractor-troltey in qu®stion.When they werc retumjn9 from •the temple to -rtiejr village, due to raurii and ne9ligent driving of its dr'iver, the said tractor-trolley turrwsd turtle as a result the deceased ^jstained 9rievous injuries on his head and died. The claimwits, who are parents of the deceased, have filed a ckxim petitjon seseking campensation to tihe tune m- ^ l^,i 11 ..2u 'K3^ Ci^) of Rs.27,92,000/- under various heads mainty on the 9round that that on account of the death of the deceatsed they have suffeped loss of income. 5. The Ctaims Tribunal after considering 1tie isaues framed by it partiaily allowed th® claim application of the claimants, awarded a SLWI of fts,3,24,700A as compensation and fastened li<Aility wi the cppellant- Insurance Company to pay the compensation. 6. We have heard leamed counsel for the partias ond perused thc impugned order as also records of the Ctaims Tribunal below. 7. Perusal of the record shows thot 1h®dececu^d along with ethers was troveJing in Itie trottey of the tracfor-in-questiwi, howwver. •rt'ie claiinan-ts as well os the owner of the troctor-in-question have tried to make <Hit a ca» that the dteceased and other villflgers were traveNng jn the vehicte-in- questjon <xs labourer, Therefore it is necessary to peruse rele^ant parc^raphs of claim petition as wetlas written statemait fited by <wner of the vehicle in question. 8. Uri-amended Para-10 of claim appMcation is quoted below;- "^t ^fesTT f^5TI^ ^t ^R? 3RT KW4lR<4l ^ 'WT ^5r?rr TTRr 'an^r ^ TTW ^NIdt ^f ^F^y, ^'^^J^'ft ^ft ^t ^?N ^5^ 'Trar ^T. ^<w^''ft "^$1 ^ ^N ^ 1°R^TcT 'SFS^ "^ ^"Hldl ^WFT W?! ^' 'dt 'WF^ ^ ITFr ^RT Wf^S 3W "Wf ^ ^^?r ^TFT "cCT ^ll<*l<h ^?;T ^ ^ ^^^ ^ di4^!^1 'f^> ^?rra5? ^tor zprf^r f^ziT t;" Amended Para-10 of Ihe ckiim petition reads thuss "^t ^fe?TT f^TI^ ^t ^T^? 3P? yWcJlR(4(l ^ WST ^fesrr v(^ •^^ ^ 1TW ^'+lldl ^ TFT ^1<iN^4l 8t<111^<14> V. 2 ^ 'SFPf ^%T^ ^F^ TP3^t 1r? vs^ ^Se^ww ^Ra^ ^' ^^R ITW w/ 3(N^^^^^^^ <»>dl^ ^^ ^ M^l^ ^ <tl4^ft ^ WPf •qF%^ ^I^^W^ ^t ^t ^N W^ TRTT Sff. •c!^^W<ft ^t ^ ^N ^ M^W ^^1^ ^ ^^ITOT ^TTiRT 3TT ^t <^ '?ft W^ ^ "TW ^T5T 1^1" 3n'IT lWt ^ BW ^TST '^T ^!d<h ^nS?T ^t ^5T ^pF? ^ ci(14'(<sj(^ i^ <(<?lt<M ^id'11 c{>lR<1 ^ff tr 9. In Para-25 of tlw written statement non-fl^ilicant No.2-Sunderkxl has stated as under:- ^—^^^ ^^,^J •^; "^r? ^. ^sfe^ ai'd^ii^w ^r^r ^ ^FFT *(j<?i<b ^ "^fe^w l^rN? ^t ^RT ^T?^ ^RTT^ ^ ^T ^ WNt cll^^jd^. ^^(^ ^ ^, ^^ 'TO?T ^Nt §T^T ^? ^ni ^? l^? •cjid* ^ ^m ^w m^ "^RR ^^^^^^^^^^ yiKfl ^T?^T ^lTcFT SI^rf^ ^ t 1^ ^ "?I?^ ^ "?iT3!Ff "^PTT ^T ^lt 3Tl:F?Tl^ ^T t ?TW ^NT 4li^<'(ft ^T V^ yw(^l<r1 t. 1^ft 'f^^ "^ ^Nr ^Fft ^tf srf^T ^Tlir grar ^^ ^ ^FT I^F^R ^ ti lO.From the obeve it is evident that owier of the vehicle (wis admined that •ttie deceased alon9 wilh other villagers had 9one for darshflOT of Oewi at Chandrahasini Temple, Chandarpur, which was not tte part of his job, Furl+ier, perusal of the insurance policy shows that tlwre was no sittjng cdpacity in the trolley and as such, the oteceased was not aul+iorized to travel in the trolley and h such a situation, stdtus of the deceased in the said trolley would be a gratuitous passenger. Therefor®,we are of -rti® opinion that vehicle was plied in breadh of insuronce policy flnd therefore the Insuronce Company should have been exenerated fromits liability. 11. At this 31090 teamed counsel for the reqaondent No».3d 4 hos subinitted that •this Court- may consider the quanlum fixed by ihe Claims Tptbunal as the amount awarded by the Ctaims Tribunal is too excessive, Therefore, we propose to consicter the quantum part of the impu9ned award also. l2.In the instant case the deceased wos 18 yeara old bflffihelor. The Claims Tribunal in order to catculate loss of dependency i.e. fts.S,07,200/-first(y deducted l/3rd from the oinnual income of -t+ie deceosed i.e. fts.28,800/- (2400x12) as personat fluid livin9 expenses of the deceased ond Ihereafter applied multiplier of t6 to it. Howsver, snce in th®ii'istant case Ihe deceased was a bachetor, -ttie Claims Tribunal should have dediKtBd S0% towurds personal and {WWQ e?q)enditure as held by llw Hon'ble Suprenw Court in the matter of jwito Mrnww (Swt.) wid cffmv -w- Osttil Trwsport Corporation anel wwthw repordad in ^OO^ tf S€C 1S1. Further, considering the cge of parents of 1h«<te<i»<K»di.e. 50 A 49 years req?ective(y, avero9e age of which would come to 48 yearo, the muitiplrr of 13 shoutel hcwe been applied by Itie Ctaims Tribunal instead of multiplier of 16, as held in the niatter of Sarta Verma's caeie (swpro). ^ "^ ^^ l3.Thus, if we deduct 50% from Itie ennual income of the deceascd and thercafter apply multiplier of 13, •ttie total toss of depenctency would coine to Rs.1,87,200/- (28800-90%xl3). Besictes this, the daiinarets are also entitted to get Rs.5,000/- each tpwards loss ®flove A affection/Rs.5,000/- for loss ofestate and Rs.5,000/- for funeratexpenses.totaltagRs.gO.OOO/- uncter other heads, 14. Accordingly, we are of view that 1iie claimants ape entitled for the compensation of Rs.2.07,200/- in all along wj-rii s«mple interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of application till the amount of compensatwn te ac-hjally made. IS.Intheresult; • the impugned award so far as it relates to fastentng of Iwibility on the cppellcnt-Insurance Company is hereby ^t asicte ancl w»hold thflEt- the (xppellant is not liable to poy ony compensation to -the re^wident- ctaimayits involvedl in the impugned award ond the same ^iall be paid by the owner of vehicte in questton i.e. reqaondent No.2 herein. In oasewvy amount deposited by the cppellant has bisen withdrown by tfee respondent-claimcnits, it witl be open for ihe appellant to necover the sanie from the re^ondent No.2-owner of vehicte. However, if llie amount, so deposited, has not becn disbursed so fdr, the Insunmce Company shall be atlowed to withdraw the same, • the impugned award is modtfied to the extent thcrt now the claimants shdj be entitled for Rs.2,07,200/- es cotnpensation in pbce of Rs.3,24,700/-. They shall also be entitted for simpte inter^t @ 6% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of filing of <ypMcation tiH actual payment is made. The amount already paid by Ihe c^pellant-Inajpance Company and withdrawn by the claimants shall be adjysted twwards the amount of compensation as fixed by this Court, 16.The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order os to _costs^_— 1 ftoshan/- Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge