IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT b' CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APP^LLANT ~7~ M.A. (C) No.- ^ p5 A-.s .-a., ft-8. © .^, v~. ...-. !.' THE ORTENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., «^THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE N0.- l, KUTCHERY CHOWK, JAIL ROAD, DISTRICT RAIPUR, CHHATTISGARH Vrs. RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS ^••^- ?^^--"' ,'-)::, .^.-•" '--.• sy \ y^\. SMT. KAUSHILYA BAI AGE 40 YRS., W/0 ONKAR PRASAD MANIKPURI OCCUPATION - HOUSEWIFE 2. ONKAR PRASAD MANIKPURI AGE 45 YRS., S/0 BAIJU MANIKPURI, BOTH RESIDENT VILLAGE SIONI, THANA - MARWAHI, TAHSIL & DISTRICT - RAIPUR CHHATTISGARH RiSSPONDENTS/NON-ANPLLCANTS : T 3- SMT. HEMWANT PORTE WIDOW B.S. PORTE, VEHICLE OWNER, RESIDENT PROFESSOR AKCHANA GAS AGENCY, M.I.G.-l, P.M.L.A. QUARTER, BHOPAL M.P. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^ APPELLANT I.A.(C)No.313of2008 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus RESPONDENTS : Smt. K^ushilya Bai & Others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Agarwat. Present : Shri Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate for the appellant. Shri AL Singroul, Advocate for respondent No.1&2. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 14.12.2010) Per: I.M. Quddusi, J. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/insurance company against the award dated 14.12.2007, passed by the Xth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 33/07, awarding Rs. 4,44,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants and as against the appeilant/insurance company. Brief facts of the case according to the appellant are that, on 10.10.2006, Shiv Prasad Manikpuri (since deceased) while driving TATA Sheara bearing registration No. MP-04/HA/1233 owned by the respondent No. 3, near Village Temri, lost his balance and the said vehicle turned turtle, as a result of which he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. •V As against Rs. 15,75,000/- claimed by the parents of the deceased, the Tribunal, awarded total sum of Rs. 4;44,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application till its payment, holding the appellant responsible for its payment to the claimants. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company would submit that deceased was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, therefore, the insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation to the claimants. Further, the insurance company examined the RTO witness from RTO Raipur who stated that license No. P/7066/R, dated 25.01.2003 is not issued by the RTO Raipur. It is further submitted by Shri Agrawal that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is shocking on higher side which deserves to be suitably reduced. On the other hand, Shri AL Singroul, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1&2, supported the award and would submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly passed the award which deser/es to be upheld. We have heard the counsel appearing for the parties, perused theorder impugned and records of court below. So far as plea of fake license taken by the insurance company js concemed, the same is devoid of merit. In the instant case, V. K ,,;.ce^ ^f^^l i ^. ".. „<•/' ''•{" it has been specifically pleaded by the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident that after seeing driviag license of the driver she engaged him who was an experienced driver. 8. The Supreme Court in case of Lal Chand v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.1 has observed in para 8 & 9 as under: "8..We have perused the pleadings and the orders passed by the Tribunal and also of the High Court and the annexures filed along with the appeal. This Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru, in para 17 has observed that where the owner Is satisfied himself that the driver has a license and is drivina completely there would be no breach of Section 149 (2)(a)(ii). He will, therefore, have to check whether the driver has a driving license and if the driver produces a driving license, which on the face of it looks genuine, owner is not expected to find out whether the license has in fact been issued by a competent authority or not. The owner would then take test of the driver and if he finds that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, he will hire the driver. 9. In the instant case, the owner has not only seen and examined the driving license produced by the driver but also took the test of the driving of the driver and found that the driver was competent to drive the vehicle and thereafter appointed him as driver of the vehicte in question. Thus, the owner had satisfied himselfthat the driver had a license and was driving competently, there would be no breach of Section149 (2)(a)(ii) and the insurance company would not then be absolved of its Hability." 200&ACJ 216.1 9. tn view of above law taid down by the Supreme Court and also in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v Swaran Singh and others2, the appellant has failed to prove willful disobedience on the part of the owner of the vehicle. However, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be on higher side. 10. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum; deducted 1/3rd of it (i.e. Rs. 12,000/-) towards personal expenses of the deceased; applied multiplier of 18, assessed the amount of compensation towards loss of dependency at Rs. 4,32,000/- (24,000/- X 18 = 4,32,000/-) and further awarded Rs. 2,000/-for funeral expense and Rs. 10,000/- for loss of love & affection and thus awarded total sum of Rs. 4,44,000/-(4,32,000/- +12,000/-) in favour ofthe claimants. 11. The claimants are parents and average age of which (40 & 45) comes to 42.5, thus, in view of Sarla Verma's case the standard deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased would be 50 percent and not 1/3rd as deducted by the Tribunal. Therefore, we propose to re-compute the amount ofcompensation. 12. After deducting 50 percent towards personal expenses of the deceased, the yearly loss of dependency would be Rs. 18,000/- per annum; looking to the age of the claimants, the appropriate multiplier would be 14 and by applying the same, 2 2004 (3) SCC 297 \, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2,52,000/-. By adding further amount of Rs. 35,000/- on other heads (Rs. 10,000/- for loss of estate, Rs. 10,000/- each for loss of love & affection and Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses),total award amount comes to Rs. 2,87,000/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled for Rs. 2,87,000/- as compensation in place of Rs 4,44,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 13. In view of above, the appeal desen/es to be and is hereby allowed in part. It is held that the claimants are entitled for Rs. 2,87,000/- in place of Rs. 4,44,OQO/- as compensation payable by the appellant along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application till payment is made. 14. The appellant/insurance company is granted three months time to deposit the amount of compensation before the concerned Tribunal. No order asto costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Sahu "\