a fc* ?>;^ M c.F^ ./ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A fa.No. ^0>/2010 APPELLANTS (Owner) r».R PtWX"-' Narottam Sahu, Son of Sukhdeo Ram Sah'u, aged 42 years, R/o. .'r^sssi'' i t.R. »•»••—••";""'-T-.^...^>^1'VNavagaon ( Belar), P.S. Sihava, ptNiorA'* ^ ^.'.\.fc»^*«k"Nr Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari (,Driver) .^ 2. <«•'' RESPONDENTS /fClaimants) > 1, <"•' 2. (Insurer) 3. Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari (C.G.), Indra Kumar Son of Itvaru Ram Markam, aged 20 years, R/o. Navagaon, Chowk - Borai, P.S. Sihava, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari (C.G.), VERSUS Jag Prasad Son of Soma Ram Gond, aged 39 years, Baratin Bai, wife ofJag Prasad Gond, aged 38 years, Both R/o. Village Barbandha, P.S. Sihava, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari (C.G.), The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Behind AmarTalkies, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION tl3 OF THE MOTORS VEHICHLE ACT, ^ Compensation Claimed Compensation awarded Valuatipn ofAppeal Court fees : Rs 26,50,000-00 : Rs. 3,52,000-00 : Rs. 3,52,000-00 : Rs. 15-00 )(. '•':;®?K^®^aS'?^a@'^%^ifSSEst,®8^i^SSSS»SBW- 'fc;"....: ••.-s-^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR M.A.IC) No.20/2010 Appellants : NarottamSahu and another. (Ownerl • Versus Resoondents -- : : Jag Prasad and others. DB:- HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL HON'BLE SHRI RJ..JHANWAR, JJ PRESENT:- Shri D.N.Prajapati-for-the-appellants'." - - - - • • - ' ShriA.L.Singraul for respondents/claimants No.l & 2. Shri H.P.Agrawal for respondents No.3. O^RAI. O R D ER (29.11.2010) Per N.K. Agarwal, J. Heard finally. ' 2. This is owner's appeal against.the award dated 16.12.2009 passed in claim case No. 07/2008 by the Additibnal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Dhamtari whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.3,52,000/- has been awarded against the appellants exoherating the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation. 3. Brief facts, in a nutshell, is that: on fateful day of 23.11.2Q07 a.t 8.00 a.m. respondenf No.l along with other labourers, was travelling in the trolley bearing No.C.G.04 DA 0502 attached to tractor bearing No. C.G.04 DA 0501 as grata-iitous passenger for the purpose of harvesting of crop. On account of rash and negligent; driving of appellantNo.2, the said tractor, owned by appellant No.,1 and insured by respondent No.3, met with an accident at Aamgaon, as a result of which, respondent No.l and other labourers were thrown away and got injuries. Deepa Kumari, whp was also sitting in the said trolley, got injuries on her r ^^ ^\v< . '?;•• ^•/ head and face and as a result of such injuries she died during the treatment at Dhamtari Hospital on 23.11.2007. 4. On account of death of Deepa Kumari, clairaants, being parents of the deceased, filed a claim pefition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act seeking compensation of Rs.26,50,000/- on various heads. 5. Per contra, appellants herein by filing their written statement denied the averments made in claim petition but accepted that appellant Np.l was the owner whereas appellant No.2 was driving the said vehicle. It was also pleaded that on fhe date of incident, since the said offending vehicle was insured with the appellant, therefore, the appellant/insurance company is wholly liable for paymenf of compensation. 6. The respondent No.3 / insurance company also filed its written statement denying entire averments made in claim petition. It was specifically pleaded that the said tractor trolley was being used unauthorized raanner; on the date of accident, the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and the appellants did not file any certificate relating to insurance policy, therefore, the respondent No.3 is not liable for payment. 7. All the parties led their evidence before the learned Claims Tribunal. 8. Learned Claims Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the submissions made, evidence led and material placed, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,52,000/- to the claimants with iriterest at 6% per annum from the date of filing claim petition till its realization. The leacned Claims Tribunal fastened the liability on the appellants to pay compensation amount while exonerating fhe insurance company. It is this order, which is under challenge by the appellants by way of Section 173 of the M.V. Act. "^' ^ ^r 9. Shri D.N.Prajapati, leamed counsel appearing for fhe appellants / owner, has assailed the award on two grounds. Pirstly, the deceased was labourer and the policy was Kissan Package Policy. It was being used for agricultural purpose, and therefore, there is no breach of condition.of policy and the leamed Clairas Tribunal has wrongly exonerated the insurance conapany from its liability to pay compensation. The leamed Clauns Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased inasmuch as the learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly deducted l/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased whereas the claimants are parents of the deceased, who was bachelor. Secondly, the muldplier of 16 applied by the learned Claims Tribunal is also on higher side whereas it ought to have been 10. He plaeed reliance in the matter of NewIndiaAssurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Anantha Reddy &, ors., (2006) 2 MAC 64 (AP). 10. On the other hand, Shri A.L.Singraul, learned counsel for and Shri Suresh Tandon, learned counsel for respondents supported the impugned award. 11. We have perused the award impugned and records of the leamed Claims Tribunal. 12. The judgment of JVeiu Jndia Assurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Anantha Reddy & ors. (supra) cited by learned coynsel for the appellants is of no help to him inasmuch as here in the instant case, it is not of much relevance whether or not the vehiele was being used for agricultural purposes. Here in the instant case, the -deceased, who was not the labourer of tractor trolley and was engaged for harvesting of crop and was sitting in the trolley as ;ratuitous passenger, the risk of which is neith^r required to be covered nor in fact covered by taking extra premium therefor, and therefore, the first contention raised by Mr. D.N. Prajapati, being sans substance is liable to.be and is hereby rejected. However, after perusal of the award impugned, we are of the opinion •' that the leamed Claims ^ Tribunal has wrongly deducted l/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. As per the decision rendered in the fcase of S»nt. SarlaVerma and Othersv. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009(2) T.A.C. 677 (S.C.), ifthe deceased is bachelor and claimants are parents, thestandard deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased would normaUy be 50 per cent and the myltiplier would be applied according to the age of the claimants or the deceased, whichever is on higher side. 13. In view of the above, in our considered opinion, the proper multiplier would be 15 instead of 16 and deduction towards expenses of the deceased would be 50 per cent instead of l/3I'd. If we take the income of fhe deceased as Rs.3000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum, as held bys the learned Claims Tribunal, then after deducting 50 per cent therefrom towards personal expenses of the deceased the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.18,000/-. After applying multiplier of 15 instead of 16, the amount would be Rs.2,70,000/-. The claimants are entitled Rs.2,70,000/- towards dependency. By adding Rs.12,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under other heads, the total compensation comes to Rs.2,82,000/- which the claimants are entitled. 15. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs.3,52,000/- awarded by the leamed Claims Tribunp.1 is modified to the extent indicated in paragraph 13 ofthis order. The claimants are further entitled for interest on the amount of award, as awarded by the Tribunal. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwg! Judqe Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge ^ -y