iHlGHCOURTOECHHAmSGARHATBILASPUR Sinaie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Rdosaheb Deshmukh. J. ARPELLANT (Owner) M.A.(G)No.15/2008 i • Sunil Kumar Agrawal, S/6 Late Ram Kumar Agrawal, R/o Viliage-Morga, Barigo, Katghora, District-Korba (C.G.) Versus 1. Munna ^Singh Raj, S/o Late Luku Singh Raj, Aged about 40 years, R/o Village Barpali;Kartala, DistrictKorba {C.G.)(C!aimant) 2. Dl'iarampa! S/o Ramadhar Kewat, Aged about 33 years, R/o Viilage- Morga. Bango, Katghora, District- Korba(C.G.) (Driver) 3. United India Insurance Company, Through Branch Manager, Korba ^.G.)(lnsurer) NIiscellaneousADoeal underSeetion 173ofthelVlotorVehictesAct;1988 Present : Shri A.N.Pandey, counsei for the appellant. ORALORDER (Passed on 11th January, 2008) Heard on j.A.No.2, which is an application for taking copy of mandatorydepositreceiptonrecord. (2) Considered and ailowed. Document is taken on record. (3) Heard onadmission. (4) This is an appea! by fhe owner of the offending Truck bearing Registration Number C.Q.-12-9599. Itis not in dispute that on 02-05-2005, the appellant was the owner of the truck which was insurecl with th& respondent No.3. It is also hot in dispute that the deceased Rai Singh vras travelling in the saidtruck, a gobdsyehicle. RespondentNo.l.-hrotheriof the deceas^d filed an applicatiQn forcompehsatton. The Motpr Accidents Claims ^ribuna] held th^ the agceasecl"was Iravellmg as a g^^ passengerarriexoneratedth&insurance'eompanyfrQmitsiiabilitytopay BOT?| nSation. The Motor Accidents Claims Jribunal not only assess^ the H^ntlTlyincome<rfthedeceasedataniggardly9ym6fRs.2,500/-t)Ut also deducted ^'c^ the rnonthly incQme towards personne!^^e 7. ^ X instead of 1/3 , and applying the multiplierof 17 assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.2,55,000/- and awarding further Rs.25,000/- under conventional heads awardedtotalsum ofRs.2,8Q,OQO/-ascompensation. (5) Learned counse! for the appellant made three fold submission:- (A) The Motor Accidents Claims Tribuna! erred in exonerating the insurance companyfrom its liability to pay compensation. (B). Secondly.it was urgedthat thecompensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is on the higher side. (C) Lastly, it was argued that owner and insurer of the stationary pick-up Van with which the truck had collided were not impieaded. (6) Having considered thesubmission of learned counsel for the appeilant, 1 have perused the impugned award. It is not disputedthatthe Truck bearing Registration No.C.G.-12-9599 was a goods vehicle. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was neither a driver nor cteaner in the said truck. The Motor Accidents Glaims Tribuna! has, on proper appreciation of evidence, held that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and rightiy exonerated the insurancecompany from its liability to pay compensation. So far as the quantum ofcompensation awarded is concemed, the learned Mbtor Accidents Claims Tribunal has taken monthly income ofthe deceased at Rs.2,500/-which is even less than the bareminimum for survival. Notonly this, instead of deducting 1/3of the .^-'.'•' . .' . • • . • '. . . ' ' . ' . monthly income towards personsfef expenses, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has deducted % of the monthly income towards personal expenses. In this manner, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded bythe MotorAccidents Ctaims Tribunal is on the higherside. So far as the last argument is concerned, since the offending truckcollided with the stationary vehicle, the owner ofthe stationary pick-upVan and the insurancecompany were rightly not impleaded as a party. In fhis manner, nohe ofthe grounds raised by the iearned counse! for the appeilant hold (7) In the result, there is no meritin thisappeal which is accordingjy dismissedatthestage ofadmission. . (8) I.A.No.1/2008forgrarit6fstaystandsdisposedof. DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge 's<.- l-:.s1 17U^a^-B-