'^~~'7~~^,..o^'^-^^SS^S'SS'ssffjoSSS^^3?9 i |IN THE HIGH COURTg&'3; lGS )'RBAT<BIIASPUR (CG) Misc. Appeal (C) No. 9'U / 2011 APPELLANT: Ramlal S/o Lafe Kali, aged 60 years, R/p Madneshwarpur, P.S. Ramanujnagar, Tahsil and District Surguja (CG). .( Vehicle Owner Tractor No. CG 15A 0634 8s Trolley-No. 15A 0635) , (NON-APPLICANT N0. 1) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^^ ^b^^v ^y^y^ >p-' ^^ ^^ |!gT: 8ft »•' ^7 1. Smt. Sumitra Wd/o Late Tula Ram Rajwade, aged 24 years, R/o Village Badrika Ashram, P.S. Ran'ianyjnagar, Districf Surguja (CG). , 2. An/ind Kumar S/o Late Tula Ram Rajwade; aged about one and hatf year, minor, through natural ;uardianmother Sirtt. Sumitra (Respondent no.l) , R/o Badrika Ashram, P.S. Rainanujnagar, District Surguja (CG). .3, Nanki Bai W/o Sodhan Ram Rajwar, aged about 62 yeai-s, R/o Village Badrika Ashram, P.S. Rainanujnagar, Distrj.ctjfSurgLija (CG).:: . •,' . • I 1, 4. Bodhan Ram S/o Late :Dakhal Sai, aged about 67.years, Rj/o Village Badrika Ashram, P.S. Ramanujnagar, District Surguja :(CG). ,.,, ; (Applicants/Claimants Ito 4) 5. Radheshyam Sahu S/o Shankhlal Sahu, aged 35 years, R/o Village Madneshwarpur, , P.S. Rarrtariujnagar, District| Surguja (CG)-.-':. -: •..:.:.l ! (DRrVER/'NON-APPtIGANT N0.2) 6. United India Insurance [Corapany Limited, throygh Branch iManager, Bramhroad, Ambikapur,i District < : Surguja. (CG). | tINSURANCE 00. /NON-APPLICANT N0^3) ^APPElA.vAi-yorniM -- J2, g7 So€>/-'i^ (MEMORANDUM OF MISG APPEAL UNElERiSECTION I 1731QF MOTOR VEHICLES AGT ! BaSltt ^' HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILA8PUR 111. DB: Hon'ble I. M. QUDDUSI & Hon'ble G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ APPELLANT: RE8PONDENTS; M.AtCl PRNo. 1561/2011 M^CO 32-6/ll R'mnlal Vs. Sm.t. Sumitra and others ilil APPELLANTS: RESPONDBNTS: M.A(C1. No.276/2011 Siut, Sumitra aad others Vs. Ramlal aad others niii APPELLAMT: RESPOMDENT8: M.A(C). No.68572011 Radheshvam. Sahu Vs. The United ludia Insiirance Co. Ltd. & ofhers MISC. APPEAL8 UNDER SECTION 173 OF THB MOTQR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Appearaace: Mr. Anil Gulati, counsel for fhe AppeUants/claimants ia M.A(C). 276/11, rcspondents 3 to 6 in M.A(C).685/2011 & respondents 1 to 4 in M.A©PR.No.1561/2011. Mr. Arviad Siaha, couitsel for fhe AppeUant/owner m. M.A© PR.No. 1561/2011 and respondent no.l in MA:C No.276/2011 aad respondent no.2 iu M.A.c.685/2011. Mr. Ataau Ghosh, counsel for the appeUaat/Driver in M.A(C).No.685/2011, respondent uo.2 in M.A.C. 276/2011 SB respondeut No.5 in M.A©PR.No.1561/2011. Mr. Dashiath Gupta & Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for the respondent/Uiuted India Insurance Conipaay Ltd. ia atl the appeals. ORAL ORDER (12.08.2011) Per I.M. QUDDU8I, J, Heard, 2. Siace these appeals arise out of fhe common award dated 13.01.2011 passed by fhe II Addl. Motor Accident Claims TribTmal (FTC), STirajpur, District Sarguja (C.G) ia Claim C&ae No. 166/2007 fhey are beuig disposed of by this conunon oider. 3. M.A(q.PR. No. 1561/2011 has been ffled by the owner Ramlal & M.A (C). No. 685/2011 was filcd by the Driver Radheshyam Sabu so far as it relates to fasteiung liability on themi as weU as quantum aad M.A(C). No. 276/2011 hasbeenffled bythe Claimiants for enliancement ofcoinpensation ainongst other grounds. 4. Bricf facts of the case as per ffae version of fhe claunants are that on 18.01.2007 deceased Tularam. along-with oftiers were traveUng in Tractor & TroUey beariiig Regn.No.C.G.15-A/ 0634 & No.C.G.15-A/0635. At that time, the said Tractor wblch was being driven by non-applicaat no.2, Radheshyam ia a rash and negUgent manner, tumed turtie and ftic , occupaat Tularam feU down frovct fhe TroUey and was run over by the Tractor, as a result of which, he died on fhc spot. At fhe time of accident, Iie was aged about 28 years; be was ninning provisional stores as also a Pan Shop aad was selliiig vegetables and tfaereby waseaniing Rs.8000/- per month. The claunatits beiag dependents/legal reprcsentatives s< have filed Claiin Petitiou u/s 166 of tlie Motor Vebicles Act, 1988 forawardmg a total conipensation QfRs.32,87,000/-. 5. The Claims Tnbuiial baving regard to ftie facts sittiation and evidence on record beld that on 18.1.2007 at about 3.00 p.in. fhe Tractor TroUey met wijli accident when its driver non- applicaat n.o.2 rashly and negUgenfly reversed the vehicle on the slope, as a result of whicli, Tularam died; there was breach of conditions of insui-an.ee policy by non-applicaiits 1 & 2 i.e., owner aad driver and the claiinants are entitlcd to get Rs.4,05,000/- fixim tbem. 6. Leacaed counsel for the owner Ramlal appeUant of M.A.(C) PR. No. 1561/2011 subinits fhat the Tractor was not beiug used for any other works except flie use of agricultural purpose aud fhis fiildiag has been given by the Court below aad ftierefore, fhe Insurance Company should be beld liable to pay coinpensation., but we have perused fbe lower coiut records and found that the deceased was traveling in the TroUey attached wifh the Tractor at the time when the accident took place aad he was crushed by the Tractor TroUey. Learued counsel on this aspect submits that aa objection was raised by fhe Driver uot to sit on fhe Trolley, but fhat would not be suffice as if the deceased had sat on the TroUey himself, the driver should not have driven the vehicle. The fact reinains that not onlv thc deceased, but also the son of the owner nainely Jagdish aad other chaldren of fhe institution were sittmg on the troUey. Th.erefore, tbere is breach oCconditions of the insuraace policy. 7. In case of Pnitcd Jndta Jnsurance Compnny Ltd., Vs. Scr/crao cmd athers (2008) 7 SCC 425, Honljle fhe Supretne Court referring to fhe casg of Oricntal Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Brlf Mohan(2007) 7 SCC 56, has reiterated that the rn.siu-an.ee coinpany has no liabilily when thc labourers were traveling in the TToUey. In the given cases, t];.s deceased was traveUng as gratuitous passenger amongst ofhers. Thcrefore, there is clear breach of conditions of the Insiiraace Policy. Hence, in our opinion, the insurance Coinpany is not liable to pay comLpensatioii. 8. Wifh regard to fhe question of enbaaceinent of EanouDLt of corupensation, we have found fhat the iacoiae offhe deceased has been assessed as Rs.3000/- per laonfbaild Rs.36,000/- per aiuium wbich does notseein to be unreasonable. After deductiag l/3rd, the reinaiader that is annual loss of dependency comes to Rs.24,000/-. The Tribuaal has appKed inultiplier 15 which seeins to be on lower side. The age of the deceased was 28 years and he was inarried. Therefore, accordiag to the inultiplier scale given in case of Saria Verma. fSmt.) —va-Delhi Trcmsport Corporatlon. cmd another (Para 40) reported iu (2009) 6 SCC 121 multiplier 17 would be appUcable. On applyiug inultiplier 17, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,08,000/-. Besides fbis, ftie widow is entifled to get Rs.5000/- for loss of consortium., fhe clamiants are entitled to get Rs.5000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5000/- for fungral expenses wbich in all conies to Rs.15,000/- over the ofher heads. Ifwe add fhis amount to ^ the total loss of dependency, fhc total coinpensatioii aiuouat comes to Rs.4,23,000/- (Rs.4,08,000/- plus Rs.15000/-), The Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,05,000/- and therefore, the amount of compensation is liable to be aad is hereby eiihaaced to the above extent. -*\ In the result, the appeals filed by fhe owner and driver i.e., M.A.C. No. 1561/2011 & M.A.C. 685/2011 are dismissed and M.A.C. 276/ 2011 ffled by the claimants is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 13.01.2011 is inodi&ed in the above terms, Rest of fhe conditions mentioned ia the award shaU remainiatact. No orderas to cost(s). Sd/. I.M. Quddusj Judge Sd/- Ghulam Minhajuddin Judge Rao