K HIGH COURTOF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI D.R. DESHMUKH, J. APPELLANT fNON^PPUCANT N0.31 RESPONDENTS (APPLICANT) (NON-APPL1CANT No.1) (NON-APPLICANT N0.2) 1\ M.A. No.95 OF 2006 National Insurance Company Umited, Branch Office, Near Head Post Office, Jagadalpur, Through : Its DMsional Manager, DMsional Office, Taha Complex, Ring Road no.2,Bilaspur(C.G.). Versus Savita Bhaskar w/o Gajaluram Bhaskar, aged-40 years, R/0 vill. & post Gamawada (Aampara), P.S. Bhansi, Distt. South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) Ravishankar S/0 Gajaluram Bhaskar, R/0 -vill. & post- Gamawada(Aampara), P.S.-BhansJ, District-South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) Gajaluram Bhaskar S/0 Pandu Bhaskar, R/0- vill. & post- Gamawada(Aampara), P.S.Bhansi, Distt.-South Bastar, Dantewada(C.G.). APPELLANT (NON^PPUCANT N0.31 M.A.N0.980F2006 National Insurance Company Umited, Branch OfRce, Near Head Post OfRce, Jagadalpur, Through : Its Divisional Manager, DMsional Office, Taha Complex, Ring Road no.2, Bilaspur (C.G.). Versus J -2-- RESPONDENTS (APPUCANTT (NON-APPUCANT No.1) ^. (NON-APPLICANT N0.2) 3. Shri Ramlal Bhaskar S/0 Mangu Bhaskar. aged-^) years, caste- Muria, R/0 vill. & post Gamawada (Aampara), P.8. Bhansi, Distt. South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) Ravishankar S/0 Gajaluram Bhaskar, R/0 -vill. & post- Gamawada (Aampara), P.S.-Bhansi, District-Souttt Bastar, Darrtewada (C.G.) Gajaluram Bhaskar S/0 Pandu Bhaskar. R/0- vill. & post- Gamawada (/teimpara), P.S.fihansi, Distt.- South Bastar, Dantewada(C.G.). APPELLANT (NON-APPLICANT N0.3J M.A.N0.1000F2006 Nationaf Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Near Head Post Office, Jagadalpur, Through : Its Divisional Man^er, DMsional Office, Taha Comptex, Ring Road no.2, Bilaspur (C.G.). RESPONDENTS fAPPUCANTSl Versus 1. Jogi Bhaskar S/0 Late Sonuram Bhaskar, aged-29 (N—fc. 2. Anil Bhaskar 8/0 Late Sonuram Bhaskar, aged-IOyears 3. Rajan S/0 Late Sonuram Bhaskar aged"7yearS 4. Gobar Singh Bhaskar S/0 Late Sonuram Bhaskaraged- Syeare 5. Simnar S/0 Late Sonuram Bhaskar aged-9years 6. Pandru S/0 Masa Bhaskar s^ed-51 years 7. Budhari W/0 Pandaru Bhaslcar aged-46 years Respondent No.2 to 5 are minor, through ad litem guardian-Mother Smt. Jogi Bhaskar-Respondent No.1 All are R/0 vill. & post- Gamawada (Aampara), P.S.-BlTansi, Dtstrict- South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) | c:im^ (NON-APPLICANT N0.1) 8. Ravishankar S/0 Gajaluram Bhaskar, R/0- vitl. & post- Gamawada (^impara), P.S. Bhansi, Distt.- South Bastar, Dantewada(C.G.) (NON-APPLICANT N0.2) 9. Gajaluram Bhaskar S/0 Pandu Bhaskar, R/0- vlll. & post- Gamawada(Aampara), P.S.Bhansi, Distt.-Soutti Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.). APPELLANT (NON-APPUCANT N0.31 M.A.N0.1010F2006 National Insurance Company Uiyiited, Branch Office, Near Head Post OfRce, Jagadalpur, Through : Its Divisional Manager, Divisional OfRce, Taha Comptex, Ring Road no.2.Bilaspur(C.G.). RESPONDENTS (APPLICANTr (NON-APPLICANT No.1) Versus Joga Bhaskar S/o Durga Bhaskar, aged-25 years. R/0 viH. & post Gamawada (Aampara), P.S. Bhansi, Distt. South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) Ravishankar S/0 Gajaluram Bhaskar, R/0 -vill. & post- Gamawada (Aampara), P.S.-Bhansi. District-South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) te' M- (NON-APPLICANT N0.2) 3. Gajaluram Bhaskar S/0 Pandu Bhaskar, R/0- vill. & post- Gamawada(Aampara), P.S.Bhansi. Distf-South Bastar. Dantewada(C.G.). APPELLANT fNON-APPLICANT N0.3) RESPONDENTS fAPPLICANTl (NON-APPLICANT No.1) (NON-APPLICANT N0.2) M.A.N0.990F 2006 National Insurarwe Company Limited, Branch Office, Near Head Post Office, JagadaJpur, Through : Its Diyisional Manasger, Divisionat Office. Taha Comptex, Ring Road no.2, Bilaspur (C.G.). Versus Pandaru Bhaskar S/0 Masa Bhaskar, £®ed-51years, R/0 vilt. & post Gamawada (Jampara), P.8. Bhansi, Distt. South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) Ravishankar S/0 Gajaluram Bhaskar, R/0 »vill. & post- Gamawada(Aampara), P.S.-Bhansi, District-South Bastar, Dantewada Gajaluram Bhaskar S/0 Pandu Bhaskar, R/0- vill. & post- Gamawada (Aampara), P.S.Bhansi, Distt.-South Bastar, Dantewada APPELLANT (NON-APPUCANT N0.31 M.A.N0.1020F2006 National Insurance Company Limited, BranclT Office, Near Head Post Office, Jagadalpur, Through : Its Divisional Manager, Divjsjonal Office, Taha Complex, Ring Road no.2,Bilaspur(C.G.). Versus s^; -^- •T" RESPONDENTS (APPLICANTl (NON-APPLICANT No.1) (NON-APPLICANT N0.2) 1. Nando Kunjami S/0 Sewa Kunjami, aged-50 years, R/0 vUI. & post Gamawada (Jampara), P.S. Bhana, Distt. South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) 2. Ravishankar S/0 Gajaluram Bhaskar. R/0 -vil!. & post- Gamawada(Aampara), P.S.-Bhansi, District-South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) 3. Gajaluram Bhaskar S/0 F^undu Bhaskar, R/0- vill. & post- Gamawada (Aampara), P.S.Bhansi, Distt.-South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.). </ Present: Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for ttie appellant ORAL ORDER (Passed on20th April, 2006) The followihg oral order offie Courtwas passed by S.R. NAYAK, CJ. All these appeate ariseout of the same accident. The contentions urged before the Court in al! these appeals are also common. Hence, we clubbed all these appeals, heard them together and they are belng disposed ofbythiscommon order. 2. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company which is appetlant in all ttiese appeals would contend ttiat the driver of the motor vehicle involved in tiie accident did not have valid and effecfive licer®eto drive the motorvehicle involved in the accident and he had onty driving license to drive light motor vehicle. 3. We have perused the impugned awards. Though the above contention was taken in the written statement filed by ttie trisuran©B Company before the MACT, the burden cast on it was not satisfactorily r^ 'c,^ ^ discharged in the sense that the Insurance Company has utteriy fialled to establish that the driver ofthe motor vehicte involved in the accident was guilty of any acttonabte negligence due to which the accident took place. Secondty, learned counsel for the Insurance Company Is that in M.A. No: 95^2006, wrong multiplier was applied. It is frue that in that appeal, the claimant is the mother of the deceasedand she wasaged about 40 years on the date of accident. In that view of the matter, strictly speaking, the MACT ought to have applied multiplier 16 for assessing loss of dependency, but, it has applied multiplier of 17. Only on that ground, we are not inclined to interfere with the award for the reason ttiat theannual income of ttie deceased was taken at notional rate of Rs. 15,OCX)/- for assessing loss of dependency which is on lower side. Thirdly, tt was meetdy contended that in terms ofthe policy, the insured could carry only four coolies in the vehicle, whereas, at the time of the aGcictent it was found that there were six coolies. This contention was raised before the MACT and Uie MACT did not accept this contention as tenable on the ground that the policy produced before the MACT does not contein aiiy stipulation that the insured vehicte should not c^rry more than 4 pereons. We are satisfied that what is awarded, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is just and reasonable compensatjon within the contemplation of ttie Motor Vehide Act 1998. No grounds are madeout to entertaln these appeals. Therefore, all these appeals are dismissed. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^'.^b>