N THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH g T BILASPUR . " L‘Q/WK/ ‘ J .A.(C) No. l $35 /2009 ‘ <4" M m :/ d _ WNW "Satyendra Singh, S/o. Fulchan 9%BX‘: 5; M aillage ingh, aged Chattigirola, about 23 Police years, Stati R/o 9L rV S on . T KRW " M$v (G.) pi D Mnd ‘ \I MMW Saraial, C. istrict ahasamu VS ERSU mt. Dulari Choudhari, W/o. Lat C. Choudhari age aout years itendra Benaree, S/o. Late Shr .C. houdhari, ae aout years Shakti Benarjee, D/o. Late Shr C. Choudhari age aout years 11 above are R/o. Near Raiwa ate, Ward No.7, Police Station ist ahasamund C.G. Clits .......... aman Fte Gali Idi Ie iid L ga . di hile wW/ A OOR V T a . nu - -_ i..:x__m-i -1. 1).. r11 WgQ PPELLN OWNE gESPONDENTS KA , uur ener na nsuranc Company Lmte, al Gan Cp d, omlex, Third Floor, G.E. Roa aiur (.. Rp CG) ........Insurer at otZenng vec f’ PPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MT EHICLE AC K? A WT I M AAT R S e Y. , d b 60 , N j i Y C gd b 34 , Ku. i Y. , d b 28 , A ly G & Drict M () T f 2] n/ Hum COURT Misc. OF AWEAL cmammamx-x (C) No. 1556/2009 AT EILAW APPELLMT Satyendra Singh Versus Smt. Dulari Choudhari & othérs EB:— i-ION’BLE $HRI NwK. AG&RWAL ANS} HON’BLE MTNHAJUDDIN Shxi Vaibhav Goval‘dhan, Advocate, for the appellant. PRESENT :— Shri Awadh Txipathi with Shri Sanjeev Banjare, Advocate far the, ve$p0ndents No. 1 to 3. Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Adm, for the mspondent No. 4. ORAL ORDER (22-6-20u) Per ELK. Agarwal, J 1. This is awners appaal againsi the award dated 17—1 1—QOOQ pa3sed by the Chiaf Motor Accidem; Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund in Claim Case No. 74/ 2009. 2. As against the claim of Rs. 21,29,630/— preferred by the claimants Le. mother and major brother and sister of deceased K11. Mukti Banerjee under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the deaih of deceased Mukti Baeexjee on 19- 1‘2009 due to accident took place on 17— 1~2009, 1ean1ed Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,70,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per ammm from the date of application tm its payment in favour of the claimants and against the appellants, exonerating respondent No. 4/ insurance Company from its liability to pay compeneation. 3. Learned aseessed Tribunal income of on the a deceased close scrutiny as Rs. 7 , of 100/ the - per evidence, month i‘e. Rs 8§,200/— per annum, deducted 1/ 3rd of it towards personal 10 and thus expenses awarded of Rs; the 5,68,000/— deceased, apphed on account multiplier of loss of of dependency. Learned Tribunal further awarded Rs. 2,000/— for funeral expenses and thus awarded Rs. in m mwxoiwi UR SHRI GULAM JJ 5,70,000/ — as compensation. Learned Tribunal exonerated th€ Insuraxlce Company from its liability to pay compensation on the ground that the decea‘wd was pimon rider sitting on the offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG—O4—DE/7259. Shri Vaibhav Govardhaxl, learned counsel for the appellant assailed the award on two grounds, first learned Tribunai has fallen in error in exonerating the Insurance Company irom its liability to pay compensation inasmuch as the policy is comprehensive policy and covers the risk of deceasecl; secondly the amount awarded is shockmgly on higher side which deserves to be suitably reduced, On the other hand, Shri Banjare, learned counsel for the claimants would subniit, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount awarded is just and reasonable however, he would support the ground taken by the appellant that the Insurance Company should be held liable jointly and severely along with the owner to pay compensation. Shri Rajput, learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit, the policy issued in the case is comprehensive policy in which risk of deceased is covered in View of guidelines issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority. However, the amount awarded is shockingly on higher side which deserves to be suitably reduced. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award of the Tribunal So far as exoneration of the Insurance Company is concerned, on the face it appears that learned Tribunal has erred in exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation g)! 9. The Circular dated 16th Novcamber, 2009 issued by the Insurance Ragulatory and Developmént Authority reads as under :- ”1‘0 CEOS of all General Insurance Cempanies Re: Liabilitiee of Insuralice Companies in respect of occupant of a private Car and Pillion Rider in a Two—Wheeler under standard Motor Package Policy (also called Comprehensive Po1icy). Insurer’s attention i3 drawn to wordings of Section (II) 1(1) of $tanda1‘d Motor Package Policy (also called Comprehensive Policy} for private Car and Two Wheelers under the (erstwhile) India Motor Tariff For convenience the relevant provisions are reproduced hereunder: . “Section Il-Liability to Third Parties 1. Subject to the limits of liability as laid down in the Schedule hereto the Company will indemnify the insured in the event of an accident caused by or arising out of the use of the insured vehicle against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of~ (i) death or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the vehicle (provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward) but except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, the Company shall not he liable Where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of employment of such person by the insured.” It is further brought to the attention of insurers that the above provisions are in line with the following circulars earlier issued by the Traffic Advisory Committee on the subject : (i) Circular M.V. No. 1 of 1978—dated 18m March 1978 (regarding occupants carried in Private Car) effective from 25m March 1977 . (ii) MOT/GEN/ lO dated 2nd June, 1986 (regarding Pillion Riders in a Two Wheeler) effective from the date of the circular. ' The above circulars make it clear that the Insured’s liability in respect of occupant (s) carried in a private Car and Pinion Rider carried on Two Wheeler is covered under the Standard Motor Package Policy. A copy of each of the above circulars is endorsed for ready reference. The authority, vide circular No. 066/IRDAfF&U/Ma1~~08 dated March 26, 2008 issued under File 8a Use Guidelines has reiterated that pending feather orders the insures shall net vary the coverage, terms and conditions wordings, waxranties, clauses and endorsements in respect of covers that were under the erstwhile tariffs. Furthen the vide Circular No. 019/IRDA/NL/F&U/Oct—08 dated November 6, 2008 has mandated that insurers are not permitted to abridge the scope of standards covers available under the erstwhile tariffs beyond the options permitted in the erstwhile tariffs. All General Insurers are advised to adhere to the aforementioned circulars and any non—compliance of the same would be viewed seriously by the Authority. This is issued with the approval of Competent Authority. Sd/ ~ Executive Director” Authority, 10. As per the above circular, the risk of pillion rider is covered under the policy of insurance issued in the instant casei Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned Tribunal went wrong in exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation to the claimant. ll. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, the claimant mother is aged about 6O years. Claimants No.2 and 3 are major brother and sister of the deceased, were not dependent on her and therefore, learned Tribunal has certainly erred in deducting only 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses of the deceased and also in applying multiplier of 10. Therefore, we propose to reeompute the amount of compensation. 12. By taking into consideration gross salary as Rs. 8,000/— and after deducting 50% of it towards personal expenses {/24 4 of thé deceased, monthly loss of dependency would b6 worked out to Rs. 4,000/— i.e. Rs. 4-8,000/— per annum. After applying multiplier of 9 as prescribed in the caso of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others -—v— Delhi Trcmsport Convomiion and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, total amount towards loss of dependency would be worked out to Rs. 4,32,000/-. After adding Rs. 15,000/- on other heads (Rs, 5,000 for funeral expenses + Rs. 5,000/~ for love and affection + Rs. 5,000/~ for loss of estate), total amount of compensation would be Rs‘ 4,47,000/— for which the claimants are entitled. 13. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed in part. The award impugned is modified. The Insurance Company is held liable along with the appellant jointly and severely for payment of compensation to the respondents No. l to 3. The amount of award is reduced and now instead of Rs. 5,70,000/~, the respondents No.1 to 3 are entitled for Rs. 4,47,000/~. The amount. of award shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till its payment. l4. The Insurance Company is gamed three months time from today to pay the amount of award. in Mi» Minna 15. No order as to costs. Sdl— Sd/~ G.Minhajjudin N.K.Agarwal Judge Judge