.^" --^ HIGH COURT OF CaiHATnSGARH AT BILASPVR Misc.Appeal No. 298/2003 -il::^: ^..-. . ... . ..-. SB: Hoa^ble Shri Justice R«L»Jliaawar APPBLLANTS Smt. DzidhmatjBai aod otiaers RB8PONDENT8 Versus Gunicharaii Yadao aad ofhers ORDBR Post for order ou <5\ .08.2010 Sd/- R.L. Jhawar Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSOARH :BILA8I»UR SINGLE BEaWCH: HON»BLB8HRI R.I^JHAMWAR. J. Misc. Appeal No. 298/2003 -^' APPBLLANTS AppUcants RB8PONDENTS Non-applicants 1. Smt. Dudhmat bai wd/o Phool Smgh, caste Kextwat, ^ged 50 yrs, 2. Smt, Gaagabai wd/ o Phool Si&gh, aged 45 yrs, 3 Maoliaran s/o Fhool Singh, aged 27yrs 4 .Rukhmaaibai D/o Phool Siagh, oged 25 yrs 5 Ku, Meena D/o Phool Siagh aged 13yrs ; :1:'1 '•—•:lll-lllls.1- . 6 Dilharaa s/o Phool Singh aged 11 yrs. 5 & 6 boffa xiimor guardian mafher Gaagabai wd/o Phool Sm^i AU resident viUage Akioli, Poli€^ Station, Naudghat, Tah Nawa^arh, Distorict Diu^ 7 Sint Draopadi bai wd/o Ram Singh, aged 30 yrs. R/o villagp Tarpongi, Tahsil Nawagarh, Distdct VBRSUS 1 Gurucharaii Yadao s/o Jageshwar Yadao, R/o MadhapaU (BALCO) Tah & District Korba (CG) 2 Uxnashaakar Siagh s/o Shivsahsy Suigh, R/o BehJnd Balco Hou^iag Board, Balco Nagar, Tah & Distiict Korba(CG) -"^ .£•"' ."^-. ^•^ "'^ tJ ^S3& 1 \h. '^ a 'CK. ^ ^^^s^ 3 The New India Insurance Company (Bima Compaay) Branch Maiiager Korba Tah & Distriet Korba (CG) MI8CELLANBOUS APPBAL UNDBR SBCTlQN 173 OP THB MOTOR VEHICLE8 ACT Appearaace: Shri Sudhir Verma, counsel for the appellaats. Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel jfor respondents No. 1 & 2» ^ Shri Sreekuniar Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with ^^ Gupta, counsel for respondent No,3. ORDER (^>\.08.2010} R.L.Jhanwsu', J AppeUants Snit Dudhmat Bai and ofb-ers are seeking enhaacement of titie compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Bemetara, Durg (CG) (for short <fhe Tribunal1) vide award dated 17.1,2003, passedmClaimGase No. 26/2002. 2. As against fhe coinpeitsation ofRs.8,70,000/- claiiBLed by fhe appellajats/clalmaats by filing a claiin petition iinder Sectioaa 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act for deafh of Phool Singh ia tiie motor accident on 22.6,2002, fhe tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs,93,800/- as coinpensatiou along wifh iaterest @ 9 %^ per aDiimn from fhe date of filing of fhe claim petitkm till llie date of actual payinent. 3. The Tribiinal on a close scrutfciiy of the entirc evidenee led before it held fhat fhe deceased - Phool Siagh died ia fhe iiiotor accident 22,6.2002; the accident occurred due to rasti aad v—^ij ^^ -^i ^ negligent driviag of fhe driver of the offeiidiag vehicle- Tata Iiidica Car bearing registratk)n No.CG 12/6512. Tfae Tribiixial has exonerated fhe New India Insurance CoiDpany on the @x>und ffaat Engiiieas weU fhe chesis numbers were not one and sasaie^ wfaich were given m tiae Poli<y aiid fhe Registration book. 4. Against fhis order, owner has filed a cross appeal, in whieh, he hsis stated that his Tata Iiidica Car was iaisiired with ttoe lusurance Coinpaiiy and fhe Engioe and Chesis iruixiberswe and saxae; fhe learaed Tribzuial has wrongly exonerated fhe Insuraace Comipany. Accordiag to him fhe car was also damaged ia fhe accident and he claimed for dacaages JBrom the same Insiiraace Company through the same policy, which has been produced by tiim in fhe presentcase, aad fhe Insurance Gompany has paid fhe claimed damages to him, fhereforc, tlie InsuiBQce CoinpaBy cannot say fhat fhe Engiae aod Chesis numbers were dtffisrentiatmg aad thercfi>re, it is not Uable for paymatit of compensation. The owner contended fhat fhe Insuraace GompaDy^ who is aa msurer, was responsible for payment of compeiisation instead nfTiim. 5. So far as cross objection is conceraed, after penisal of eopy of fhe registration book, which has been attached wifli fhe record, shows that the registration book number is 322251 forCar No^CG 12/6512, in which, chesis No. has been written as 60014 GXZP 21025 and Engme No. as 475 IDI 01 CXZP 19554. In ffae poMey, which is on record as Ex. P/6, Engme No, has b^snwritten as 475 IDI 01 CXZ 1955, mwhich, No,4 is missiiig and a^IaabetP is also xmssmg, fherefore, the leamed Tnbunal has held fhat fhe Engme No. and chesis No. given ia fhe registration book are not inatclxbig to fhe nuxnbers given ia the Insuraiice poUcy. >'..?-. "*"'.,. f/^ • \ '•^^e^ ^/ •^rf-' -^ 6. The policy, produced by fhe Insuraace Compaay is also kept in the file, in which engine No. 475 ID I 01 CXZ 19S54 hasbeen written m red line, aad chesis no. is written as 60014 CXZP 21025. Chesis no. given in fhe regtetoration book is 600141 GXZP 21025. Chesis uo. is also not matehing, therefiwe, fhe Tribuiial has not exred in findiag that fhe Insurance policy, wMch was tate^n by the owner is not coirect because the Engme aod chesis DOS. are aot niatching with fhe rcgistratk>ii book, thereforey tib^ e^ appeal is Mable to be disimssed and it is hereby dismiss^d, t-. 7. So far as enhancenient of fhe conipensation is eonceiiied, learo.ed counsel jfor the appellaats/claimiaats ax^ued fhat io^ Itie matter of Smt. Scarta Vcrma and Othcrs Wersus i3telhi Trcuisoort Corporation and Anoffcer. 2009 ffl] i?.M.P* 161 /S.CJ. a niiiltipUer of6has been applied for the age groupof 65-70 years, whereas, ia fhis case, miiltiplier of 5 has been applied, thercfore, niultipUer of 6 should be appUed aiid fhe conipeiisation may be enhaoced to fhat extent. 8, On fhe other hand, learaed counsel for fhe owner supporfeed the award aad submitted tibiat liabflily should be fastened on fhe lusurance Compaay. 9. A perusal of record shows fhat fhe leanied T^tbunal has taken fhe age ofthe deceased m between 65-70 yearsv Itmeaas, fhe Tnbunal has considered fhe a^ offhe deceased abxsare 65 years, thercfore/ multipUer of 5 has been applied, whieh^^^^^^ accordiag to fhe muttiplier used ia fhe matter of Sarla Verma (supra). Therefore, in my opiaion, fhere is no need for exihaacemeait offhe compensatton iii fhis case. Th^ appealof<he appeBaats/claimajats is Mable to be dismissed aad it is hereby dismissed, —. - - -As^ ^ ^-^'\^' .^' 10. So far contentiion of learaed counsel for the owner is concemed, fhe cross objection has already been dismissed for fhe reasons mentioned above. 11. Tfaerefbre, fhe learaed Claims Tribunal has iiot erred id law in awardiag fhe compensation ia favour of the owrner and has rightly exonerated to the Insurance Company. 12. There is no iUegaIity or infirmily ia the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. The appeal as weU as the eross objectioii is disnussed. 13. No order as to costs. Sd/- R.L. Jhawar Judge ^ ^'