IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR .uJ: MISC. APPEAL N0. / 2007 APPELLANT •^•^ sto -^* ,fl;^4t8nt fr"' Bajaj Allianz General Insurance/^ Q')^ Company Limited, Through Manager, Shiv, Mohan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) (INSURER) VERSUS RESPONDENTS D^ .1'? Smt. Sukhbati Sahu W/o Late Gokul Sahu, aged about 40 years, 2) ^ Ku. Triveni Sahu D/o Late Late / Gokul Sahu, aged about 17 years minor represented through natural guardian mother .Smt. Sukhbati Sahu, 3)^ Smt. Bhaga Bai Sahu w/o .Late^ Nahru Ram Sahu, Mother of deceased, All R/o Vill. Baktara, Post Office Kendri, Tahsil and P.S. Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.) (CIaimaats) 4) ^ Sachin Kumar Chauhan s/o Bishan- ^ Singh Chouhan(DMVER) : Smt. Pramila Singh Chouhan w/o Bishan Singh Chouhan Both R/o Shitla Nagar, Awanti Vihar Colony, Telibandha Raipur (C.G.) (OWNER) MEMORANDUM OF APPEALJJNDER SECTION l'f3 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 AS AMENDEDJtYACT OF 1994 The appellant begs to submit as under: Beine-aa°°na- ^ 9 HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Sbri I. M. Quddusi, BB Hon'ble Shri G. Minhajuddin, JJ. APPELLANT M. A. |C) No. 1236 of2007 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Versus RESPONDENTS Smt. Annu Sen 8s others Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri Ghanshyam Patel, counsel for the appellant. Shri Wasim Miyan, counsel for the respondents No. 5 & 6. None for the other respondents. APPELLANT M.^AJC) No^ 1237_of 2007 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Versus RESPONDENTS Chameli Bai and others. Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri Ghanshyam Patel, counsel for the appellant. None for the other respondents. M, A. (C) No. 1277 of2007 APPELLANT Bajaj Alliznz General Insurance Company Limited Versus RESPONDENTS Smt. Sukhbati Sahu and others. Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri Ghanshyam Patel, counsel for the appellant. Shri Suresh Tandon, counsel for the resp'ondents No. 1 to 3. None for the other respondents. AND APPELLANT M.AJC) No. 1278 of 2007 Bajaj Alliznz General Insurance Company Limited Versus RESPONDENTS Smt. Kunti Bai and others. Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri Ghanshyam 'Patel, counsel for the appellant. Shri Suresh Tandon, counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 6. N'one for the other respondents. ORDERIOrall (Passed on this 28th day ofJuly, 2011) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. The aforementioned four appeals (M. A. (C) Nos. 1236/2007, 1237/2007, 1277/2007 and 1278/2007), filed by the appellant/Insurance Company are being decided by this common order as they arise from one and the same accident occurred on 18.8.2006 by the vehicle - Maruti Van, bearing registration No. C.G.04-H/3245. The facts in brief are that on 18.8.2006 at about 9.15 a.m. the aforesaid vehicle, which was owned by Smt. Pramila Singh and insured with the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by Sachin Singh, as a result of which the Maruti Van got out of control, it struck to a roadside tree and tumed turtle in the roadside field. In that vehicle Yamu Sen, Sanjiv Kumar Dhruv, Gokul Ram Sahu and Santosh Tandon were sitting as occupants of the vehicle. In that accident Yamu Sen received grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries on 22.8.2006; Sanjiv Kuinar Dhruv received grievous injuries and fracture; Gokul Ram Sahu died on the spot and Santosh Tandon succumbed to the injuries received by him. The legal heirs ofYamu Sen filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of-a^total compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-. Learned Claims Tribunal by award dated 22.8.2007, passed in Claim Case No. 2/2006 ( Smt. Annu Sen 85 another Vs. Sachin Kumar Chouhan 8s others) (M. A. (Cj No.1236/2007) awarded a sum of Rs. 4,54,500/- as coinpensation, holding the Insurance Company as liable to pay the amount of compensation to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest and rest of the amount i.e. Rs. 2,54,200/- along with interest shall be paid by the owner and driver. The injured/claimant filed a claim pedtion under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 9,68,200/-. Learned Claims Tribunal by award dated 22.8.2007, passed in Claim Case No. 39/2006 ( Sanjiv Kumar Dhruv Vs. Sachin Kumar Chouhan SE others) (M. A. (C) No. 1237/2007) awarded a sum of Rs. 81,l00/- as compensation, holding the Insurance Company as liable to pay the amount of compensation. The legal heirs of Gokul Ram Sahu filed a claini petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of total compensation of Rs. 9,10,000/- under various heads. Leamed Claims Tribunal by award dated 22.8.2007, passed in Claim Case No. 6/2007 (Smt. Sukhvati Sahu 8s others Vs. Sachin Kumar Chouhan SE others) (M. A. (C) No. 1277/2007) awarded a sum of Rs. 3,34,500/- as compensation, holding the Insurance Company as liable to pay the amount of compensadon to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest and rest of the amount of compensatiQn i.e. Rs. 1,34,500/- along with interest shall be paid by the owner and driver. The legal heirs of Santosh Tandon fileid a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of total compensation of Rs. 18,28,OQO/- under various heads. Leariied Claims Tribunal by award dated 22.8.2007, passed in Claim Case No. 41/2006 (Smt. Kunti Bai Tandon & others Vs. Sachin Kumar Chouhan 6s others) (M. A. (C) No. 1278/2007) awarded a sum ofRs. 4,69,500/- as corapensadon, holding the Insurance Company as liable to pay the amount of compensation to the extentofRs. 2,00,000/- with interest and rest of the amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 2,69,500/- along with interest shall be paid by the owner and driver. 7. These appeals have been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the impugned awards on the ground of liability as well as quantum; The perraission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been granted to the appellant by the Claims Tribunal. 8. Leamed counsel for the appellant has submitted that the vehicle was being used for coraraercial purpose therefore there was breach of the conditions of the insurance policy as the insurance policy was a package policy for private vehicle. 9. Having heard leamed counsel for the parties, having regard to the facts situation and having perused the records of.the Claims Tribunal it is evident that although it has been admitted by the owner of the vehicle that the intention to purchase the vehicle was to earn some inoney for the daily need of the family but it could not be proved that on the date of accident the Maruti Van/vehicle was being used for commercial purpose. It could not have been proved that the occupants of the vehicle were sitting as gratuitous passengers. Therefore, it could not be proved that on the date of accident the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose. 10. In view of the above, the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company, so far as it relates to the liability part of the impugned award is concerned, are noL_sustainable. It is held that the Tribunal has rightly imposed the liability upon the appellant/Insurance Company in all the four awards. 11. Now, we proceed to examine the matters with regard to quantum. F~ '<p- 12. Having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record we are of the opinion that in Claim Case No. 2/2006 - M.A.(C) No. 1236/2007 learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the yeariy income of the deceased as Rs. 36,000/- and after deducting l/3rd towards personal and livkig expenses assessed the yeariy dependency as Rs. 24,000/-. However, looking to the age ofthe deceased as 28 years, instead of 18, the multiplier of 17 should have been applied. Thus, we award a compensation ofRs. 24,000/- x 17 = 4,08,000/- towards loss of dependency. The amount awarded under the other heads by the Tribunal i.e. Rs. 22,500/- and the other conditions imposed in the impugned award shall remain in tact. The impugned award dated 22.8.2007 passed in Claim Ca.Se No. 2/2006 is modified to the above extend. The M.A.(C) No. 1236/2007 is allowed in part accordingly. 13. In Claim Case No. 39/2006 - M.A.(C) No. 1237/2007 learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 61,100/- towards loss of earning due to injuries sustained by the claimant and Rs. 20,000/- towards other heads and thus awarded a total compensation of Rs. 81,100/-. Having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record, wherein the claimant suffered only one fracture and incurred some expenses towards treatment, we are ofthe opinion that he is entitled to get Rs. 20,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of earning due to one fracture and Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering. Thus, we reduce the amount of compensation to Rs. 50,000/-. All the other conditions imposed in the impugned award shall remain in tact. The impugned award dated 22.8.2007 passed in-Claim Case No. 39/2006 is modified to the above extend. The M.A.(C) No. 1237/2007 is allowed in part accordingly. .^J'. 14. Having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record we are of the opinion that in Claim Case No. 6/2007 - M.A.(C) No. 1277/2007 learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the yearly income of the deceased as Rs. 36,000/- and after deducting l/3rd fowards personal and living expenses assessed the yearly dependency as Rs. 24,000/- and thereafter applying the multiplier of 13 looking to the age of the deceased, who was above 45 years, has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 3,12,000/- towards loss of dependency. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in the impugned award dated 22.8.2007 passed in Claim Case No. 6/2007. The M.A.(C) No. 1277/2007 is dismissed accordingly. In Claim Case No. 41/2006 - M.A.(C) No. 1278/2007 learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the yearly incoine of the deceased as Rs. 36,000/- but according to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saria Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another1 where the number of dependents are 6, there should have been l/4th deduction towards personal and living expenses and multiplier of 17 should have been applied looking to the age of the deceased as 28 years. However, the Tribunal has deducted l/3rd towards personal and living expenses and applied the multiplier of 18 and thus awarded Rs. 4,32,000/- towards loss of dependency. According to us, the total amount of Rs. 4,59,000/- comes towards loss of dependency ( 36,000 -9000 = 27,000 x 17 = 4,59,000 ). Since there is no cross objection on behalf of the claimants, we cannot enhance the amount of award. Therefore,~~we-^are of the considered opinion that no interference is called'for in the impugned award dated (2009)68cc 121 16. 22.8.2007 passed in Claim Case No. 41/2006. The M.A.(C) No. 1278/2007 is dismissed accordingly. In view of the foregoing, M. A. (C) Nos. 1236/2007, 1237/2007 are allowed in part to the above extent and M.A. (Cj Nos 1277/2007 and 1278/2007 are dismissed as no interference is called in the impugned awards, passedtherein. No order as to costs. ___. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge G. in Judge akur