IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. fCI No. S<<^ APPELLANTS ??.-: 9^ z. //' .1^ ^t>~^". ...^y^-""" ..n'^ '•" 1-°'( ^:y^ -•• ^^ j2J<' ^v' o'- 1. Chamal Sai, /S/o Aliram, aged 52 years, Caste Kanwar, Occupation Agricultural, (Owner) Ram Naresh S/o Srisai, aged 25 years, Caste Kanwar, Occupation-Driver Both resident of Village Bundia, Chowki-Bhatgaon, Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) Vs VERSUS RESPONDENTS/ CLMMANTS :1 :2, Ramu S/o Jaguram, aged 50 years, Caste Malar (Soni ), Occupation-Worker Lilawati W/o Ramuram, aged about 45 years, Ocupation- Worker, Both R/o Village-Dwarikapur, P.S. Ramanujnagar, Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Manendragarh Road, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) APPEALUNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 INSURER :3, ,g»("<-sc''%, f^i APPELLANTi •H COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH. BiLASPUR I'BLI ,J. W.A.fCINo. 307 of 2009 Chamal Sai and another. Versus Ramu and others. Shri D.N. Prajapati and Mohammad Tariq Haider, counsel for the apps!!ants. Shri Ashok Kumar Shukia, counsel for respondents No. 1 & None for respondent No.3. r' ORAL ORDER (05W7/2011) Heard. (2) This appeal is barred by 405 days. (3) On due consideration, prayer for condonation of delay is ailowed. (4) Learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. (5) The appellants are the owner and driver of tractor and trolley bearing registration No. C.G.15A/1068 and C.G.15A/1069. In an accident caused by the said vehicle deceased Shobhit Ram, aged about 26 years dled at about 9.00 a.m. on 17/01/2005. At the time of aecident the tractor troliey was involved in transportation of stones. it was the defence raised by the appeiiants that the transportation of stone was for the owner's personal use in the agriculturai fieid; therefore there was no breach of the terms of policy. (6) Whiie deciding issue No.2, the Tribunal has found that the poiicy taken by the owner was 'Kisan Package Policy' and the transportation of stone was for construction of government dam at village Jagannathpur and for the said transportation the contractor who was constructing the dam has hired the tractor troiley belonging to the appellant. (7) it was argued by leamed counse! for the appellants that there was no breach of terms of the policy and the transportation of boulder/stone was for ,the owner's personal use. 4'11'^ '<'E>. •'a"^" '"''^^^—^:^ 2.- (8) Having gone through the record of the claims Tribunal this Court cannot take a different view than what has been taken by the learned claims Tribunai. AW-1 Ramu, the father of the deceased, has admitted in para 6 of his cross-examination t'nat the owner was not using the tractor for his own cuitivation work. Further in paragraph 11 of his statement he again admits that the iractor was used for transportation of bouiders/stone for construction of government dam. He also admits that frse contractor had hired the vehicle. ~he owner, in his cross-examination, feigned ignorance as to from which place the bouider was transported. If the transportation was at the instance of the owner for his personai use, it is impossibie that he Is not aware as to the place from where the boulders were transported. This Court thus finds no substance in the arguments raised by the iearned counsel for the appeliants. (9) Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that application of multiplier of 13 is not correct because the deceased was unmarried and parents have fiied the claim petition. In the matter of Saria verma (SmfcJ and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121 the Hon'ble. Supreme Court has held that where the parents are the claimants the age of the parents wouid be taken for choosing the multiplier. In the present case the age of the parents is 50 years and 45 years. Their average age comes to 47.5 years. In Sarla Verma (supra) for age group of 46 fo 50 years multiplier of 13 has been made applicable. Thus / it cannot be said that the Tribunal has appiied the wrong multiplier. It is also to be seen that the Tribunai h-as granted oniy Rs.2,000/- for funerai expenses and additional amount of Rs.5,000/- to both the claimants for ioss of love and affection has been granted and no amount for loss of estate has been awarded. Amount awarded on these heads are on iower side. (10) For all this reasori, thls Court is not inclined to hold that the amount of compensation has been assessed on higher side by the learned claims Tribunal. (11) There is no substance in this appeal, which faiis and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge K