^> T\~P~F\. ^^•-id-^b HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLESHRIRAJEEVGUPTA,C.J.& HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMARSINHA, J. AppeUants Claimants Misc Appeal ^to.554 OT2004 1 Ismail Khan, S/o Israfal Khan, aged about34years 2 Bashirun Nisha, W/o Ismail Khan,aged about 28 years Both are R/o Viltage Ramanujn^ar, PS Ramanujnagar, Tahsll Surajpur, District SurguJafCG) Versus Respondents 1 Brij Narayan, S/o Prem Say, aged Non-applicants about 28 years, occupatton Driver, R/o Village Umapur, Police Station Ramanujnagar, District Surguja (CG) (Driver) 2 Balam Say, S/o Thakur Prasad Rajwade, aged about 40 years, R/o Village Nakna, Police Station Ramanujnagar, Tahsil Surajpur District Surguja(CG) (Owner) 3 The United India Insurance Company Llmited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Near Ram Mandir Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) (tasurer) Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehfete Act. 1988 Present : Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, counsel forthe appellants. None for respondent No.1. Shrl DN Prajapati and Shri Mohd Tariq, counsel for respondentNo.2. Shri Dasarath Gupta,counsel for respondent No.3. r7''i' ^ :y',,y ^ Apiwllant Owner Respondents Claimants Driver Insurer Misc Apoeal No.1094 of 2005 Balam Sai, S/o Thakur Prasad Rajwade, R/o Village Nakna, PS RamanujnE^ar, District Surguja (CG) Versus 1 Ismail Khan, S/o Israfal Khan, aged about 34 years 2 Bashirunnisha, W/o Ismail Khan,aged about 28 years Both are R/o Village Ramanujnagar, PS Ramanujnagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (CG) 3 Brij Narayan, S/o Prem Say, aged about28 years.occupation Driver, R/o Village Umapur, Police Station Ramanujnagar, Dlstrict Surguja (CG) 4 United India Insurance Company Llmited, Through Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Branch Office, Near Ram tyiandir Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) Appealunder Section 173 ofthe MotorVehicleAct. 1988 Present : Shri DN Prajapati and Shri Mohd Tariq, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. / Order (16th November, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajieev Gupta, C.J. SESS!^»»WS'WIWaWSl»W S^^^^^Si^i- —T—— ^^ 3!"'g •-1)41.>^ The impugned award dated 10.03.2004 passed by the Sixlh Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunat, Surajpur, Surguja in claim case No.76/2003 has given rise to filing of these two appeals i.e. MA No.554/2004 and MA No.1094/2005. MANo.554/2004 has been filed by fhe claimants for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, whereas the other MA No.1094/2005 has been flled by the owner of the offending vehicle against the impugned award holding him tiable to pay compensation to the claimants. 2) Asagainst the compensation of Rs.5,CX),0(X)/-claimed by the claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased giri Kum.Shama aged about four years by filing a claim petition under Section 1^ of the Motor Vehicles Act for her death in the motor accldent on 13.02.2003 the Tnbunal awarded a total sum of Rs.54,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date ofthe filing ofthe claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evkience led before it held that ctaimants' daughter KumShama dled on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 13.02.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle tractor-trolley bearing registration No.CG-15/A/0323 and CG-15/A0325 respecth/ely; though the above offending vehicles tractor-trolley were insured on the date of the accident with the Unitedlndia Insurance Company Limited, as the driver of the tractor-trolley was not holding any ''?, tUisase»wt»TTliimrtflUWa|Biay^^i'&.^SSi^^''^^'^.'^i'/i ^-^ •^ "~ !>~.—i "•^S.i driving ticense, the tnsurance Company was entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the traGtortroltey. 4) The Tribunal considering all the relevant aspects of the matter including the age of the claimants' daughter awarded lump sum of Rs.50,000/- as fiompensation; Rs.2,0(X)/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/- for loss of estate. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a totat sum of Rs.54,500/- as compensation to the claimants for the death oftheir daugMer Kum shama in the motor accident. The Tribunat further directedpayment of interest on the above amount of compensatlon of Rs.54,500/- @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition titl the date of actual payment. 5) Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, leamed counsel for the appellants vehemently arguedthat the Tribunal has erred in awarding )ow compensation of Rs.54,5(X)/- only. 6) Shri DN Prajapati and Shri Mohd Tariq, teamed counsel for the owner of the tractor-trolley on the other hand submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding the insurer of the tractor-trolley entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the tractor-trolley. 7) Shri Dasarath Gupta, leamal counsel for respondent No.3, the United 1ndia Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that as the driver of the .tractor-trolley was not holding any license at all at the time of the accident the Tribunal has rightty held the insurer of the 3!l::!:'ii 2-7 tractor-trolley entitledto recover the amount of compensation from the owner and driver of the tractor-trolley. 8) So far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concemed, the same, in vtew of the dtetum of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Syed Ibrahhn and others reported in 2007 (4) T.A.C. 385 (S.C.) does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. The A| X Court in the above case held the compensation of Rs.51,500/- as just and proper compensation for the death of a child aged about 7 years in the motor accident. In the present case also considering that the claimants' daughter Kum Shama was aged about four years only, we are satisfied that the compensation of Rs.54,500/- awardal by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9) So far as the liability of the owner and driver of the tractor- trolley is concerned, we gather from para-9 of the impugned award that Brij Narayan, who was driving the tractor-trolley at the time of the accident had a leaming license which was issued on 26.05.1999 and was valid up to 25.11 .T999 only. The unfortunate accident wherein claimants' daughter Kum Shama lost her life took place on 13.02.2003. It appears that afterthe expiry ofthe learning license bn 25.11.1999, for the first time the teaming license was got renewed on 03.03.2003 i.e much after the date of the accidenton 13.02.2003. Thus, tt is apparent thatjpn the date of the accident i.e.13.02.2303, Brij Narayan was not holdlng any Iteense at all. In ttiis state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the finding :':S:^S£^-1^ ^-g 6 recorded by the Tribunal hotding the insurer of thetractor-trolley entitled to recover the amount of compensatlon from the driver and owner ofthe tractor-trolley. 10) During the course of hearing, leamed coui%el for respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited pointed out that in fact, the insurer of the tractor-trolley has already recovered the amount from the owner of the tractor-trolley. 11) For the Toregoing reasons, both the appeals i.e. MA No.554/2004 filed by the clsrfmants for enhancement of the compensation and MA No.1094/2005 filed by the owner of the tractor-trolley against the award are tiable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. 12) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chiet'Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge padma •awau^a-iuuibui"'*"*"- ..•>.:33y