BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR APPELLANT DEFENDANT NO.3 RESPONDENT CLAIMANT NO.2 RESPONDENT DEFENDANT NOJ RESPONDENT DEFENDANT NO.2 @whm WW he Oriental Insurance Company, Jagdolpur, Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office - 2, Raipur (C.G.) Waadaka son of Ganga, aged abou’r 42 years, caste Lohar, resident of Dhurras, P.S. Kookanar Tah. Konta, Distt. South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G‘) Smt. Rupay wife of Maadaka, aged about 38 years, caste Lohar, resident of Dhurras, P.S. Kookanar, Tah. Konta, Distf. South Bastar Dontewada (C.G.) Beti Ganga, S/o. Beti Muka, aged about 24 years, occupation — Driver, R/o. Nayapara, Sukma, Tah. Konta, Distt. South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) Viplav Kumar Bose, son of Ramanee Mohan Bose, aged about 50 years, occupation — Vehicle Owner, R/o. Maheshwari Para,~Sukama, Distt. South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) \M" ..... MtSCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION T73 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT i988 a, E‘s 1 A M.A.(C! NO. 5gb! [2008 vr VERSUS RESPONDENT CLAIMANtNm w)?» g w HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TIW, BILASPUR. DB: Hon’ble I. M. QUDDUSI Hon’ble GI'IULm mmA-IUDDIH, JJ M. A 1c; No. 150112008 MISC. APPEAL UNDER 3ECTION 173 OF THE HMOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Appearance: Mr. Prashant Jayaswal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shailendm Shanna, counsel for the appellant None for mspondents 1 to 3 though served. Mr. Pravecn Knmar Dhurandhar, counsel for respondent 4. om 01mm (17.06.2011) per 1M. gamma, J, 1. This apneal'has been nled by the Insurance Company against the impugned awani dated 24.10.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dantewada (South Bastar) in Claim Case No.186] 2006 so far as it relates to fastening liability on the appellant 2. Bn'ef facts of the case as per the version of claimants are that on 30.06.2006 deceased Mangli alongwith other had gone to Gondpalli by Tractor 05 Tmlley bearing Regn.No.C.G.05-A/9076 8r. C.G.05-A/9077 for bringng manure for agricultural purpose. When she was returning to Sulcma after loading manure in the Trolley. on the way near APPELLANT: The Oriental Insurance Comyany Ltd Vs. RESPONDENTB: Maadaka &s others Muithonda Golaguda she fell down mun Tractor 'I‘mlley due to rash and negligent driving by its driver/mspondent no.3, and came under the wheel of Tmlley, as a result of which, she sustained serious head injury. She died on the way when she was being brought to Sukma Hospital in cn'tical condition. At the time of accident, the deceased wae aged about 20 yeaxs. She was earning Rs.2500/— by doing labour works. The claimants being dependents] legal representatives have med claim peu‘n'on u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,90,000f- on van‘ous heads. The learned Claims Tribunal held that the deceased died due to rash and negligent dxiving of the said 'I‘mctor 85 Trolley by its driver] lespondent no.3 and there was no breach of policy conditions. It has awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,15,000/ - which the claimants axe entitled hem the non applicants jointly or seveially. We have heard learned counsel for the pardes and have also perused the recoxds of the Tribunal. We have found that in the Reg'shation Certidcates of the ’I‘Iactor-Trolley (Ex-D(2), there was no seating capacity except one that is for driver. Though the insurance policy was a Package policy but the deceased was sifting in the Trolley which was not the place of seating. Since there was no seating capacity except one for the diiver, there was breach of insurance policy and hence the insurance company could not have been held liable to pay combensation. In View of the above,w-4the appeal is allowed. The Insurance Company is exonerated mun payment of compensau'on. However, it will be open for the claimants to realize the amount of compensation mm the owner of the Tractor- Trolley. No onier as to costs. The amount deposited by the appellant shall be refunded. in case the same has already been disbursed to the ckimants, it will be open for the appellant] Insurance Company to IECOVCI‘ mm the owner. Learned counsel for the owner/respondent no.4 who is present in the Court has observed that the quantum has not been nxed properly by the Claims Tribunal and the owner should not be burdened unnecessarily on a wrong assessment of the quantum. The Tribunal has taken the ' income of the deceased as Rs.80/— per day, Rs.2400f— per month and Rs.28,800/- per annum which he does not dispute. However the Tribunal has deducted 1/3’d towards personal and living expenses of the deceased whirh is not correct. In the instant case, the deceased was unmarried girl and the parents are claimanm. It is well settled law that if the deceased was unmarried, one half (50%) is to be deducted towards his/her personal living expenses. Therefore, aher deducting one half (50%) towards personal expenses horn the annual income, the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 14,400[~. The Tribunal has applied muln’plier 16 which is also on higher side. The parents being claimants; the age of the parents is to be considered. The VM w: age of the parents are 42 and 38 years; &eir avarage age comes to 4O and they fall within the age gmup of 36 to 40 years. Acconiing to the muliiplicr scale prescribed by Hon’blc the Supreme Court in Satin Verna (3mm —w- Delhl Transport Corporation mm othem ($009) 6 m 121 vide pala 40, muliiplier 15 would be applicable and not 16. Themfore, on applying multiplier 15, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,16,000/-. (14400 x 15). Besides this the parents am also entitled to get Rs.5000]— each for loss of love and ah‘ecu‘on (total Rs.10,000/-); Rs.5000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5000[— for hmeral expenses, which in all comes to Rs.20,000/— over the other heads. lfwe add this amount to the total loss of dependency, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.2,36,000]- (Rs.2,16,000 + 20,000). Therefore, the awaid of'I‘ribnna] i.e., Rs.3,15,000[- is reduced to 2,36,000/- which the claimants am entitled to receive hom the owner. This award shall also can'y interest @ 6% per annnm h‘om the date of ming of the claim petition till its payment is made. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. No older as to cost(s). l 5w. sw- I. M.Quddusi G. Minhajuddin Judge Judge