»«' 4>i ^ /'^^^y; 3^ '..^ ^ 0; 1EFQ&E T'1-LE_HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASRUR ffi.6.1 M.A.(C) N0. ^ /2Q07 APPELLANT MFENDENTN0.2 &ESRONDENTS .ELAIMANTNo.l ^he New India Assurance Co. Ltd Divisional Office, Kachahri Chowk, Rajpur (C.G.) through - the Eivisibnal Manager, Divisional Offiee - Bilaspur (£.G.) VERSUS 1 f, Smt. Aradhna Thakur, aged about 36 years, widow of Late Shankar Lal Thakur. RESPONDENTS 2. g Bhavesh Singh, aged aboyt 11 .QLAIMANT N0.2 " years (Minor), son of Late Shankar Lal Thakur. RESP0NDENTS 3^ Kumudini Thakur, aged about 9 <:LAIMANTNQ.3 years (Minor) daughter of Late Shankar Lal Thakur. RESPONDENTS -CLAIMANT N0.4 4^(L Dymendra Pratap Singh, aged about 4 years (Minor) son of Late Shankar Lal Thakur. Respondents No. 2 to 4 (minors) through - their mother and natural guardian Smt. Aradhna TRakur, widow of Late Shankar Lal Thakur, All are resident pf Forest Colony, House No. S-ll, Pandari, Raipur (@.g.) RES&QNDENTS DEFENDANT N0. N0.1 ^- Mahar Singh Thakur, aged about 68 years, son of Shri Ramji Thakur, resident of village Telguda, Bhilai, T.A. - A/6, Shailehdra Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Ownec-o£Mahindra Boltero Mo. CG 04B-8685) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1§8§ HI0-1 COURT W CHHATTISGARH AT BlLASPUR U^^I'SS S i&r^ T SA ^M irsfSI j^T A nS/S'?'^*-S? fftR. A.fyi.W^/*-r^V*°?4 'EX SLE MR. PRASHflNT KUM^R MISHRA. JJ. fAA^ [cl No.216/2007 Fhe New India Assunmce Co. Ltd.. RajDur (Defenaant No.2) VS •^ fCtaimants Smt. Arodhna Thakur A others fendant No.2) rF€S£HT^ Mr, Aw\' Mishra. Advocate for -the aDDeilant. AAr. S.K. ouha, Advocate for the respona'ents No.l to 4. /f <th A-^—:s '5^14 ^^ (11. /ipnl. £Utt) A: I. By way of thisaDpeal under Section 173 of the Motor V'ehicles AcT. 1988 ('for short the Act), the aopeliant-Insurance Companv has impUQned the award dated 16.01.2007 passed by the leapned Chief Motor flccjdent Claims Tribunai, Raipur (CS) (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.54/2006 allowinci ctaim aDplication of the ciaimants. gwgrdma compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- and fasteninq liability on the appeilont hsrein TO pay conipensarion. not on!y challenqed 1+ie liabiiity oart ot guestionsd the quantum fixed by the Ctaims und'er Section 170 of the Acthas been 2. The appelfant-lnsurance Company The Jmpuqned award but also guestK Tribunal and in this reqard permission aranted to the aDDeliant. 3. Facts of the case, in br-ier, are tiiat on 20.03.2006 Shankar Lal Thakur (since deceased) was cominQ from Kanker to Raipur in Bolero bearinq reqistration number C604-B-8685, owned by his father. A-f about 10.00 p.m. m the niaht when they were 'n between Villaqe Rakhi & Bhataqaon, tyre of the vehicle was burst os a result of which the vehicle beco.me uncontrolled and dashed' with a tree due to which Shankarlai Thakur sustained qrievous Jnjuries and died on •riie spot. Matter was reported in •riie Police Station Kurud. The claimants, who are widow & children of 1tie deceased, have filed a claim application before the Ctaims Tribunal seeking compensation to +he Tune of Rs.22,68,969/- for the accidental death of Itie deceased on the qround that The deceased was the oniy earninq member in the family and they were deoendent on his earninas. 4. On The pieadinqs of the parties, the Claims Tribunal has framed as many as eiqht issues and after hearing the oarties and considering material available on record' allowed claim application of the clqimants, ciwarded a compensation of Rsl6..00,000/- and' fastened liabiljty on the appeliant herein to pay comDensaTion. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-lnsurance Company contended That insthe instant case the vehjcle, which is a privatecar, was insured under a packaae poficy (comprehensive policy) and under which risk of driver other than owner-cum-driver was not covered. 5ince it is an admitf'ed Dosition that The deceased was driyinq the sajd vehicie which does not belong To him and The same befonas to his father. therefore. the Insurance ComDanv is not iiable to pay oiny compensation and the Claims Tribunal has erred in holding flie sppellant-Insurance Compciny lidble to pay compensation. He has further contended that compensation awarded by 1tie Claims Tribunal is too excessiye in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. On the other hand, learned counsei for the respondents No.l to 4 supported the impugned award, 7. We have heard learned counse! for Tfte parties and.perused the records of +he Claims Tribunal as also the 1'jndinas qiven in The impuqned award. 8. The deceased. who was son of 1+ie owner of vehicle in auestion. was holding valid and effective drivinq licence on the date of accident. In -rfie insurance policy •f-ollowinq condition has been mentjoned; Any person includma insured provided ttiat a person driving holds an effectiye drivina licence at The time of the accident and is not disgualified from holdinq or pbTaJning such a licence. Provided also That t'he person hoidina an effective tearner's licence may (jlsa-a-? ^ ••< \ ^ ^. drive the vehicleand such a person satisfies the reguirements of ftule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle ftute, 1989." Sesides above, in the matter of package poiicy there is a Circular of the Insurance Requlatory and Development Authority dated 16.11.2009 in which earlier circulars issued bv the Tariff Advisory Commirree dated 18.3.197i ouid 2.6.1986 were clarified. Ths operative part of the Cjrcuiar Dated 16.11.2009 js guoted herein below:- "The above circulars make !T clear that 1+ie jnsurance liabilit/ in respect of occupant [s) car-ried in a private care and pillion rider' car'ried on two-wheeler is covered under the Standard Motor Packaqe Policy. Therefore, this circular js bindinq upon the : insurance comoanies tor The reason tliat tfte deceased was certainlv an occupant of the private car and in the aforesaid circular it has been ciarified ThaT the occupant in a private car is covered under the comprehensive insuronce poiicy. AH Senerai Insurers are advised to adhere to the atorementioned circulars and any non-compliance of the same would be viewed seriously by the Authority." 9. In view ot the above. since the deceased was one of The occuoants o.f the prjvate car and' the insurer has issued comprehensive policy i.e. Standard A^otor Packaqe Policv. his nsk was covered under the policy and as such liabjljty to pay compensation comes upon the appellant-Insurance Company. Therefore, we are of the opinion thgt the Claims Tribunal has rightly imposed liability on the appellant Insunance Company to pay the compensation and in this regard' contention of the learned counsel for appeliant is not sustainable. 10. With regard to the guantum Dart is concerned, it has come in the evidence that claimant No.l-Smt. Aaradhna TTiakur, widow of the deceased, has got appointment on the post of Assistant firade-III on compassionate ground and is aettinq monthly saio.ry fts.5,000/-, but while calculatjnq the compensation the Claims Tribunal hasnol- taken into consjderotion this dSDect of the matter in yiew of the judgmentsmentioned in Para-17 of the impugned award. Howeyer, in the maner of Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. Kanta Agsarwal (Snnt.) and Others reported in (2008) 11 SCC 266 the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that ''benefits which ihe claimant receives on account of the death or injury have to be duly considered whil'e fixing -the compensatiort. ll.In yiew of the above. we are of the oDinion that -riiere is miscalculation or wrong dssessment of the quantum fixed by the Claims Tribunal and we feet That on the point of auantum, the matter requires reconsideration at 1+ie end of The Claims Tribunal. .A l2.In the result, we allow this aoDWil in Dart. set aside the award dated 16.01.2007 passed in Claim Case. No.54/2006 by the learned Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C6) and remit the matter back to^ the Claims Tribunal for deciding the question of quantum afresh in the light of observations made in this order. The claim oetition shall be restored to its oriqinal number and question of quantum shall be decided afresh by the Cl'aims Trjbunal after affording opportunity to the parties to adduce additional evidence, jf any, amend the pleadinqs, file documents or verify the documents already filed in this reaard. Rests of the findings aiven by the Claims Trjbunat in the impuqned award are hereby affirmed. l3.The parties shali aopear before the Claims Tribunai concerned on 10.05.2011. The records of the Claims Tribunal shall be sent back wifliouT further delay. No order as to costs. 14. Certitied coov as per rules. roshm/- Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge