-A-- P. R,. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Misc Appeal (0 No.355 of 2010 Appellants Claimants 1 Smt Hemlata age about 36 years, w/o Lt Indra Kumar Kothari Occupation House wife 2 Ku Reena Age about 19 years, d/o Lt Indra Kumar Kothari 3 Ku Geetanjali, Age about 17 years, d/o Lt Indra Kumar Kothari 4 Ku Usha, Age about 14 years, d/o Lt Indra Kumar Kothari 5 Livendra Kumar, aged about 11 years s/o Lt Indra Kumar Kothari Appellant No.3 to 5 are minor through natural ^uardian mother Smt Hemlata, Cast - Halba All of them are resjdent of Vill Markelli, Post - Tohe, PS and Tahsil - Manpur, District Rajnandgaon (CG) VERSUS Respondent Non-applicant tnsurance Co. National Fnsurance Co Ltd., Above Central Bank, near RMS Office Jagdalpur (CG) Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Present : Shri Rakesh Thakur, counsel for the appellants. None for the respondent. ^' ^' MAC.No. 355 of 2010 ^ ORDER ?th (26tnAugust,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur, district Kanker (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 23.08.2009, passed in Claim Case No. 18/2009. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.23,81,120/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and children of deceased Indra Kumar Kothari by flling a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 16.10.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a closescrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Indra Kumar Kothari died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 16.10.2008; as deceased Indra Kumar Kothari himself was the owner of the motorcycle involved in the accident and no other vehicle was involved in the accident and the motorcycle at the time of the accident was being driven by the deceased himself, the claimants were entitled to get compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- only under the terms of the contract of insurance. MAC.No. 355 of 2010 4) The Tribunal, therefore, directed the insurer of the motorcycleto pay a total sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Indra Kumar Kothari in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri Rakesh Thakur, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- only, though the claim petition was filed by the claimants under Section 163-Aof the Motor Vehicles Act and as such it was not at all material as to who was driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident. 6) It is not in dispute that deceased Indra Kumar Kothari himself was the owner of the motorcycle, which he was driving atthe time of the accident. It is also not in dispute that no other vehicle was involved in the accident. It is true that the claimants filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and not under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. 7) The Apex court while considering the maintainability of a elaim petition by the legal representatives of the deceased who was the owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Rajni Devi and /^'^ .1 l::iiiil& ;| 'i.. i"~^...// ^^s^^' 4 MAC.No. 355 of2Q10 ^ Is others reported in (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 736 observed in paras 11 and 12: "11. The liability under Section 163-A of theAct is on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient. The heirs of Janak Raj could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163-A of the Act. For the said purpose only the terms of the contract of insurance could be taken recourse to. 12. According to the terms of contract of insurance, the liability of the Insurance Company was confined to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). It was liable to the said extent and not any sum exceeding the said amount." 8) As in the present case also, the insurance coverage under 'compulsory PA to owner-cum-driver' was to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- by paying extra premium of Rs.50/-, the liability of the Insurance Company in the present case also in view of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Rajni Devi and others (supra) would be to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- only. 9) As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Indra Kumar Kothari under the accident, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. ^M'^^^ J MAC.No. 355 of 2010 ^r^ padma 10) The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^