HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram : HON'BLESHR)RAJEEVGUPTA,C.J.& HON'BLE SHR! SUN1L KUMAR SINHA, J. MA.C. No. 02 of 2008 APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS ^.... 1. Smt. Sangeeta Bal Janbandhu, Wd/o Late Ram Lal Janbandhu, aged about 35 years, Occupation Noany 2. Sanjay Kumar S/o Late Ram Lal Janbandhu, aged about 16 years (Minor) Student of Class-1C^h. 3. Vijay Kumar S/o Late Ram Lal Janbandhu, aged about 13 years, Minor Student of Class6th. Appellant No.2 and 3 are Minor, Through: Natural guardian Smt. Sangeeta BaiJanbandhu, All are R/o Bankal Khapri, Tahsil Dbngargoan, District Rajnandgaon, at Present R/o Camp No.2, J.P. Nagar, Bhilai, Dlstrict Durg (C.G.) Versus 1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through: Branch Manager, tempteeLine,Rajnandgaon 2. Smt. Rajkumari Wd/o iaie Ram Lal Janbandhu, aged about 35 years, 3. Ku. Premlata D/o Late Ram Lal Janbandhu, aged about 19 years, 4. Ajay Kumar S/o Late Ram Lal Janbandhu, aged about 13years 5. Ku. Suman D/o Late Ram Lat Janbandhu, aged about 11 yeans 6. Ku. Monika D/o Late Ram Lal Janbandhu, aged aboutOSyears, RespondentNo. 4,5 and 6 minors Thrpugh: Natural guardian Smt. Raj Kumari Wd/o Late Ram Lal Janbandhu, All R/o Khandupara, Dongargarh, Tahsil Dongargarh, Distrlct Rajnandgaon ^ rt- y '•\ -—— -\- - Appeal Under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehides Act 1988 Present: Shri V.K. Sharma, counsei for the appellants. ORDER (27th February, 2008) The following order of the Coyrt was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri V.K. Sharma, learned counset for the appellants is heard on admission. 2. The appellants, who are widow and sons of deceased Ram lal Janbandhu, are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal; Rajnandgaon vide award dated 03-10-2007 passed in Motor Clalm Case No. 42/2006. 3. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs.29,30,000/- for the death-bfRam lal Janbandhu in the motor accident, when his motorcycle dashed against a bridge, resulting in the death of Ram lal Janbandhu and his brother Vijay Janbandhu. 4. The insurer of the motorcycle contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the plea that the deceased and his brother Vijay Janbandhu were heavily drunk at the time of the accident and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himsetf. The insurer in the alternative pleaded that even if the Insurance Company was held liabie to pay compensation to the claimants, its liability was limited to the extent of Rs.1,CM3,000/- as extra- premjum of Rs.50/- only was paid for covering the risk of the ownerofthevehiele i.e. deceased. %•a, 5. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties held that the insurer of the motorcycte was liable to pay compensation to the. claimants. As the liability of the insurer under the contract of the insurance between the owner and the insurer was limited to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-, the Insurance Company was directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimants with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claimant petition till actual payment. 6. Shri V.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has en-ed in awardlng meager amount of Rs.1,00,000/- only as compensation to the claimants. 7. Ordinarily, in a case of limited liabflity of the insurer, compensation payable to the claimants is worked out by first assessing the income of the deceased ; the dependency of the ciaimants ; and by applying the appropriate multiplier. The insurer is held liable to pay compensation to the claimants to the extent of its liability under the poiicy and the batance amount of compensation is payable bythe owner ofthe vehicle. 8. In the present case, as the deceased himself was the owner ofthe vehicle, no one else except the insurer ofthe vehicle could have been directed by the Tribunal to pay compensation to the claimants. As the liabillty of the insurer of the vehicle under the Insurance policy was limited to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-, the Tribunal could not have directed the insurer of the vehicle to '*\ pay compensation amounting to more than Rs.1,00,000/-. \;. subbu 4 ^ 9. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the award passed by the Tribunal which may warrant Interference in this appeat fited by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation. 10. The appeal, therefore, is llabte to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed, summarily. SdA— ChiefJustice SA'- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge fv-f 'x