I}N THE HIGH COURT OF IQDICATURE AT BILASPUR \ mvisian ganea ‘ MANO. 56% /2003 1‘ APPELLANT : / United India Insurance Company Ltd. ’éfendant No.3 , Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, 1 Bilaspur. -Versus- RESPOND‘ENTS Q 1 Smt Lance Devi, 48 years l "3‘ // ‘ Wd/ o Late Surendra Natn Pandey. 1 2 Resham Pandey 21 years a ‘/7/ D/ o Late Surenélra Nath lgandey. 3. Mamta Pandey, 20 years, i .// D/ o Late Surendra Nath Pandey. ’ ,-.I’. I /iL/‘/ 4 . D/ Babrta a Late Pandey Sureridra 18 years Natn Pandey. $ 5. Pinky Pandey, 14 years, D/ o~Late Surendra Nath Pandey. I g, /6. Santosh Kumar Pandey, 1g years, / / S/ o Late Surendra Nath Pandey. g ‘7. Shri Amarnath Pandey, 65 years, z’ S/ o Rituraj Pandey. S 8. Smt. Devasi Devi, 60 years, x” W/ o Shri Amardev Pandey All R/o Ward No.1 Manendragarh, Mk PS. and Tehsil— Manendragarh, District- Korea (C.G.) -Claiments— i 1 .9. Shri Hawaldar Ramdev Munda, 1 % L' 3/ o Shri Baramudia Transporter, R/ o Dhanpuri, Distt. Sahdol, " Present R/ o Rajendra Nagar, Bilaspur. ~Owner- / E . y 1 ‘ O. lmamuddin S/ o Rahman Musalman, / Aged about 39 years, R/ o Tinpam‘, PS. & District— Banmda, Present R/ 0 Harradafai Ledri, PS. & Tehsil— Manendragarh, District— Korea. /Driver- APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988. 4 /t HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS BILASPUR DB: Hon’ble I. M. QUDDUSI & Hon’ble G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ u M. A. No. 568 of 2003 \ \ PPELILANTI United India Insurance Company Limited ‘ Vs, i ESPONDENTS: Smt. Lance Devi and others l § A R ISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTIGN 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES M Aypeara‘nce: Mr. H. B. Agrawgl, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pankaj A§awa1, for t12’le Appellant. Mr. RP. Sahu, counsel for respondsnts 1 to 4 8r. 6. ORAL ORDER (01.11.2011) Per LM. QUDDUSI, J, 1. This appeal has been $cd by the Insurance Company against t'llje impugned awani dated. 06.03.2003 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tn'bunal, Manendragarh, Distt. Kama (C.G) in Claim Case No.48/2001 in so far as it relates to fastening liability upon the appellant to pay compensation to the claimants as also on quantum. ‘ Brief facts of the case as per the version of claimants are that on 04.11.2001 in between 4 to 6 p.m., one DnmperJI‘ruck biearing Regn.No. M.P. 18f6387 which was being driven by non- applicant No.2 Imammuddin ina rash and negligent manner diashed Surendranath Pandey, as a result of which he died. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 42 years, he l was working as Security Guam in the colliery of South Eastern l l l l l l Coal Fields, Hansdev Ama, and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/ -. The claimants being dependentsllegal ? rclpmsentatives have &ed claim petiu'on u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles for the awaxti of total compensation of Rs.22,77,000/- oil van'ous heads. Lelarne'd Claims Tribunal having regard to the facts situation hreld that the accident was caused by Dumper bearing Regn.No‘ NIPJ8/6387 when it wa§ being driven by non-applicant no.2 in rash and negligent manner, as a result of which Surendra Pandey died and the claimants are entitled to receive a total i . n V compensation 01' Rs.10,66,000/— nom the appellant insurance I V company. I l We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the'I‘ribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the motor vehicle was a Dumper and its use was restricte/d to the coal niines area only. Therefore, as the accident was a road accident and not Within the mining area, the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. However, secn'on 146 of the ‘MVA provides for necessity for insurance against third party risk. Sub—section (1) of Secn'on 146 reads as under: “No person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow any other person to use, a motor vehicle _ in a public place''rnnless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of this Chapter: Provided that in the case of a vehicle carrying, or l, i meant to carry, dangerous or hazardous goods, there i shall also be a policy of insumnce under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991. Explanation— A person driving a motor vehicla ; merely as a paid employee, While there is in fomé in Ielation to the use of the vehicle no such policy as is required by this sub-section, shall not be deemed to act in contravention of the sub—section unless he knows or has reason to believe that there is no such policy in force. i (2) Sub-section (1) shall not apply to any vehicle owned by the Central Government or a State Government and used for Government purposes unconnected with any commercial enterprise. (3) ‘ The appropriate Government may, by order, exempt from the operau'on of sub—section (1) any vehicle owned by any of the following authorities, namely :- (a) the Central Government or a State Government, if the Vehicle is used for Government purposes connected with any commercial enterprise; (b) any local authority; (c) any State transport undertaking: ‘ " Provided that no such order shall be made in relation to any such authority unless a fund has been established and is maintained by that authority in accordance with the rules made in that behalf under this Act for meeting any liability arising out of the use of any vehicle of that authority which that authority or any person in its employment may incur to third parties. Explanation—For the purposes of this sub-section, “appropriate Government” means the Central Government or a State Government, as the case may be, and— (i) in relation to any corporation or company owned l § by the Central Government or any State Government, means the Central Government or \ that State Government. ¥ f i é! In relation to any corpomu‘on or company owned by the Central Government and one or more State Governments, means the Central Government; § (iii) In Ielation to any other State transport undertaking or any local authority, means that t Government which has control over that undertaking or authority.” t Section 147 of the Act provides for requixements of policies and limits of liability which leans as under: (ii) 1 V ‘“147(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of Insurance must be a policy which— (a) is issued by a person who is an authorized insurer; and ‘ (b) insures the person or classes of persons specided in the policy to the extent specined in subsection (2)— (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; (ii) against the death or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place: Provided that a policy shall not be required- (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of theempléyEe of a person insured by the Policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment, other than a liability arising ,4 under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily )//t¥“" / injury to. any such employee—- (a) engaged in driving the Vf'hicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, o‘r (c) to cover any conttactualliability. Explanation-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injmy to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding g that the person who is dead or injmed or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place. (2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (l), a policy of insurance refened to in sub-section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, upto the following limits, namely:— (a) save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liability incurred; (b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of‘ rupees six thousand: Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be eifective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier. (3} a policy shall be of no eh‘ect for the purposes of this Chapter unless and until there is issued by the ‘ insurer in favour of the person by whom the policy is J " ‘ en‘ected a cei lilicate of insurance in the prescribed form ‘ and containing the prescribed panicmaxs of any condition subject to which the policy is issued and of any ‘ other prescribed matters; and dih‘ere-nt forms, particulars and matters may be prescribed in did'erent cases. (4) Where a cover note issued by the insurer under the provisionsof this Chapter or the rules made thereunder is not followed by a policy of Insurance Within the prescribed timé, the insuxer shall, within seven days of the expily of the period of the validity of the cover note, noh’fy the fact to the registen'ng authority in whose records the vehicle to which the cover note relates has been registered or to such other authority as the State Government may prescribe. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specihed in the policy in respect of any liability Which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those i classes 6f persons.” A bare reading of the above quoted statutory provisions yvould show that the Insurance Company was bound to bear the risk of third party and as such covering of risk could not have been restricted to any particular area inmspect of third party accident. Further more, for the purpose ofworking in'the imining area, the vehicle would certainly go and reach in the Imming area by road and therefore, it cannot be said that the iroad could not have been used by the Motor Vehicle and if the road was being used, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation in case of third party accident. Therefore, this contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant iin this regard as mentioned above is not sustainable in the eye 10f law. §With regard to quantum part, learned counsel for the appellant ihas submitted that there were 9 claimants but in fact there éshould have been only 4. Even if it is presumed that there :were four ed‘ective dependents, the standard deduction would ‘ be 1/4th in View of the decision of the Supreme Court in case ’7. t\ \§ . j qf Sarla Verma (Smtq -vs- Delhi Transport Corporation and qn&her reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. It has not been disputed that the net income of the deceased was Rs.9851/— per month and therefom, after deducting 1/4‘11 towards personal and living expenses, it would come more than the amount of compensation granted by the Claims ’I‘xibunal. Therefore, the total amount of compensation nxed by the learned claims Tribunal cannot also be interfered with‘ However, with regani to the interest part, we have seen that m'it'lally the Tribunal has ganted simple interest @ 9%) per annnm if the amount under the award is paid Within two months and in case the amount is not paid Within stipulated p‘eriod, it has imposed a penal interest @ 15% per annum which is not sustainable. The interest can be levied only at the prevailing market rates that are hxed by the Nationalized Banks hom time to time on F‘1x(ed Deposits and imposing penal interest @ 15% would not be in accordance with law and therefore, we set aside that part of the impugned award by Which the penal interest @ 15% per annnm has been imposed‘ Therefoxe, we direct that the award shall carry simple interest @ @A) n‘om the date of hling of the claim petition till the payment of award is made. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 06.03.2003 is modided to the above extent. No .\ as to costs. \\ M Sdl Sd/— LM. QUDDUSI i G. Minhaiuddin ' Judge Judge