HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A(ClNo.781of20Q7 APPELLANTS : Satwantin Bai andothers VERSUS Vinod Kumar Yadav and others Applicants RESPONDENTS «, APPELLANT RESPONDENTS M.A(ClNo.955of2001 Rakesh Kumar Sharma VERSUS Satvantin Bai and others ORDER FOR CONSIDERATION 3. .9.2011 Sd/- 1..9.2011 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEVGUPTA Sd/- ChiefJustice -t-. For Pronouncement of Order ^ .09.2011 Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge .f o^ HIGH COTJRT OF CHHATTIStiARH AT B1L6SPUR MISC. APPEAL (Q No. 781 of 2007 APPBLLANTS Applicants RESPONDENT Non- Applicanfcs 1. Satiyantin Bai, aged about 32 years, 1W/o late Shri Santosh Sahu, 2. Nawdhesh Kumar, aged about 16 years, S/o late, Santosh Sahu, 3. Ku. Pumima Sahu, aged about 10 years, D/o late Santosh Sahu, 4. Deepak Kumar Sahu, aged about 03 years, S/o late Santosh Sahu {No.2 to 4 are minor, represented by inofher, natural guardian, Satwantin Bai} ^Ul residents of vUlage - Sonsari, Thaaa - Pamgarh Distt. Janjgir - Champa (C.G.)} Versus 1. Vinod Kumar Yadav, S/o LR.Yadav, R/o Ward No. 12, Baigarpara, Janjgir, Distt Janjgfa'-Champa, (C.G.). Driver ofthevehicle. 2. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, S/o Gokulchandra Sharma, Maniyari Talab, Station Road, ^' Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)Owner. 3. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Ofi5ce, BIlaspur, Near Bus Stand, In iTont of Rajiv Plaza, Bilaspur (C.G.)— Insurer. Present: Shri Amrito Das, Gounsel for the appeUants. Shri Sushobhit Singh, counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel forrespondent No.3. 1ite'8'l«»^: ^ MISC. APPEAL tC\ No. 955 of2007 APPELIANT NON APPUCANT N0.2 Claimants No. 1 to 4 Ss Non-AppUcants No. 1 and 3. u ^ Rakesh Kumar Sharma, S/o Gokul Chandra Sharma, aged about 37 years, resident of Maniyari Talab, Station Road, Janjgir, P.8. Janjgir, District Jaaj^r Champa (CG) (Owner oftheVehicle) Versus Satvantin Bai, Wd/o Late Santosh aged about 32 years. 2. Navdhesh i Kumar, S/o Late Saiitosh Sahu, aged 26 years. 3. Ku. Pumima Sahu, D/o Late Santosh Sahu, aged about 10 years. 4. Deepak Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Santosh Sahu, aged about 3 years. (Sl.No.2 to 4 muiors, fhrough naturl guardian mother Smt. Satvantin Bai Wd/o Late Santosh Sahu). AU resident of Sonsari, Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa (CG). (Claimants/Applicants No. 1 to 4) 5. Vinod Kiimar Yadav, S/o ^ I.R.Yadav, resident of Ward No. 12, Baigapara, Janjgir, District Janjgu- Champa (CG). (Driver of fhe vehlcle/Non- applicant No. 1) 6. The New India Insurance Coinpany Limited, Braach Near BUaspur Bus Stand, behind Rajiv Plaza, Bilaspur (C.G.) (Insurance Company/Non- Applicant No.3) .KiEiSnSg,,; •;1 'VsWsm ?: ~w-..s'',, s y ,? Present: Shri Sushobhit Singh, counsel for the appeUant. Sfari Amrito Das, counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4. Shri Akhflesh Kumar, counsel on behalf of Shri Deepak Gupta, couasel for respondent No.6. APPEALS UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR ViaiICLES ACT. 1988 Coram: Hon. Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J •<1. ORDER (Passedon2_-9-2011) i Per N.K. Aaarwal. J. M.A (C) No.781/2007 has been preferred by fhe appeUants/claunants seeking enhancemenjt of compensation awarded by the 1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspiir (for short the Tribiinal') in clatm case No. 117/2006 vide award dated 03.05.2007 whereas M.A (C) No.955/2007 has been preferred by the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle challenging his liabUity for payment of compensation fastened upon him in the above award. 2. Both fhe appeals were filed against fhe same award passed by the Claims Tribunal, fherefore, bofh the appeals are being disposed of by fhis common order. 3. As against fhe compensation of Rs. 13,80,000/- claimed by fhe claimants i.e. unfortiinate widow and minor children of deceased Santosh KLimar Sahu by fllir^ application under c Section 166 oftfae Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevily the Act') for Ms death in fhe motor accident on 20.03.2006, fhe leamed Tribunal has awarded a total siim of Rs,3,63,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment against (he owner and driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration O. G. 1 1/A- 5038, exonerating fhe New India Insurance Gompany Limited from its liability to pay compensation to the claunants. •) 4. The leamed Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of fhe evidence led, held Vinod Kumar Yadav i.e. driver of fhe offending vehicle i.e. Auto bearing reglstiation No.C.G.ll/A- 5308 responsible for the accident; as fhe offending vehicle was being plied at the time of aceident in violation of policy conditions, insurance company is not Uable for payment of compensation; assessed and awarded fhe aforesaid siim of Rs.3,63,000/- as compensation in favour of the clamiants against the owner and driver of the ofiending vehicle, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from fhe date of filing of clatm application tiU its actual payment 5. Shri Amrito Das, leamed counsel appearing for fhe appeUants/claimants inM.A.(C)No.781/2007, vehemenfly argued; fhe leamed Tribunal has faUen m error in assessing the monfhly inconie of (he deceased as Rs.2500/- and in awarding low ainount of compensation. 6. Shri Sushobhit Singh, leamed coiinsel appearfng for fhe appellant/owner in M.A.(C) No. 955/2007 woiild submit: fhe leamed Tribunal has faUen in error in exoneratmg fhe respondent/fhe New India Insurance Company Limited froia its liabUity to pay coinpensation and in fastening tfae liabUity to pay compensation upon appellant/owner and respondent No.5. 7. . On fhe other hand, Shri Dashrath iQupta and Shri AkhUesh Kumar, appearing for the New India Insurance Company Limited supported the award and submitted fhat m the facts and circumstances of fhe present case, fhe leamed Tribunal has righfty exonerated the insurance company from its UabUity to pay compensation and fhe award deserves to be upheld. 8. We have heard fhe leamed counsel appearing for fhe parties, perused fhe award unpugned and records of fhe Tribunal. 9. We shaU first examiae sfifHciency or ofherwise of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10. True, fhe claimants pleaded, deceased Santosh Kumar Sahu used to eam Rs.4500/- per monfh by seUing bread and froiu agriculture, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish fhe above income of fhe X: !:t"8%&?' :1 1 1 j --.S-^—-'-^ ^ u ^ u vh.%^y {'•^•-^sss.f" ) deceased. tn fhis state of evldence, we do not find any infirmity in fhe assessnient of fhe incoiae of the deceased, who was resident ofSonsari, Tahsil Pamgarh, Disfaict Jarggir- Champa, at Rs.2500/- and Rs.30000/- per anniun by fhe Tribi-mal. 11. The leamed Tribunal, after deducting one-fhird of fhe income towards personal expenses of fhe deceased, righfly assessed claimants' yearly dependency as Rs.20,000/-. By uiultiplying fhe claunants annual dependency with fhe inultiplier of 16,fhe amoiint of conipensation assessed by the Tribunal is Rs.3,20,000/-. The Supreme Coiirt in the case of Sarla Vernaa (Scnt.l and others -v- Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121,has prescribed fhe inultipUer of 15 for the age group between 36 to 40, and fherefore, fhe uiultiplier of 16 selected by fhe Tribunal cannot be found faiilt wifh. The leamed Tnbunal has further awarded Rs.43,000/- on other heads (Rs.20,000/- towards loss of Gonsordum; Rs.10,000/- towards loss oflove and affection; Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.3000/- towards funeral expenses) and thus, awarded total sum of Rs.3,63,000/- as compensation for fhe death of Santosh Kumar Sahu. The above amount of compensation, by no streteh of unagination, can be said to be inadequate. Therefore, in our opmion, the leamed Tribunal has awarded just and proper cbmpensation in the facts aad 3"eaa^A circumstances of fhe case and claimants' appeal is devoid of merit. 12. Now, coming to fhe second question, indisputably, fhe offending vehlcle is a goods carriage vehicle. Satwantin Bai (A.W. 1) in her evidence admitted that offending vehicle Auto is a goods carriage vehicle and her husband (since deceased) along with tspo ofher persons was sittlng in tfae above vehicle. Deceased was not employee and certainly was sitting in fhe vehicle as gratuitous passenger. ' 13. It is settled law (hat provlsions of the MV Act do not enjoin any statutoiy UabUity on fhe owner of the vehlcle to get his vehicle insiired for any passenger travelling in a goods carriage vehicle and fhe rnsurer would have no liability therefor. However, an owner of a vehicle intends to cover himself from other risks, it is pennissible to enter mto a contract of insurance ia which event the insurer would be bound to reimburse the owner of fhe vehicle stricfly in terms thereof. A contract of insurance which is not statutory in nature shoiild be construed llke aily other contract. 14. We have noticed fhe tenns 6f the contract 6f uisurance. The policy issued in the case is goods canying commercial vehicle (open) package policy which covers the risk of third party and one employee. By chaigng extra premium of Rs.100/-, fhe risk of owner-cum.-dnver is also covered to fhe "'' extent of Rs.2,00,000/-. The deceased was passenger sittmg tn fhe offendmg vehlcle. The contract of msurance did not cover fhe risk of passenger sitting in fhe vehicle tnquestion. 15. In fhe absence of any contract covering fhe risk of gratiutous/non-gFatultous passenger sittmg and traveUu^ in the offending goods carriage vehicle, fhe msurance company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation to fhe claiaiants for fhe death of deceased Santosh Kumar Sahu ! sitting and toraveUing in the goods canying commercial vehicle as gratuitous passenger. 16. For fhe reasons mentioned hereinabove, above two appeals, being devoid of merit and substance, are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. 17. However, in the facte and circumstances of the case, fhere shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge