HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CAIVI HON’BLE SHRI S.R.’NAYAK, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI D.R; DESHMUKH, J. M.A. No. 95 OF 2006 MA. No. 98 OF 2006 National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Near Head Post Office, Jagadalpur, Through : Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Oflice, Taha Complex, Ring Road no.2, Bilaspur (C.G.). APPELLANT (NON-APPuCANT No.3) Versus OR APPELLANT National Insurance Company (NON-APPLICANT Limited. Branch Omce, Near Head N03) :Post Ofme, Jagadalpur, Through : Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Taha‘ Complex, Ring Road no.2, Bilaspur (C.G.). Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Savita Bhaskar w/o Gaialuram (APPLICANT) Bhaskar, aged-40 years, RIO vill. & post Gamawada (Aampara), P.S. Bhansi, Distt. South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) (NON-APPLICANT 2. Ravishankar SIO Gajaluram No.1) Bliaskar, RIO -vill. & post- Gamawada(Aampara), P.S.-Bhansi, District-South Bastar. Dantewada (C.G.) (NON-APPLICANT 3. Gajaluram Bhaskar S/O Pandu No.2) Bhaskar, RIO- Vill. & post- Gamawada(Aampara), P.S‘.Bhansi, Distt.vSouth Bastar. Dantewada(C.G.). RESPONDENTS 1. vShri Ramlal Bhaskar $l0 Mangu (APPLICANT) Bhaskar, aged-30 years. caste- Muria, RIO vi". & post Gamawada (Aampala). P.s. Bhansi, Distt. South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) ‘ (NON-APPLICANT 2. Ravishankar 3/0 Gaialuram No.1) Bhaskar, RIO -vill. ‘8: post- Gamawada (Aampara). P.S.-Bhansi, Districtsouth Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) \i : (NON-APPLICANT 3. Gajaluram Bhaskar SIO Pandu N02) Bhaskar, R/O- vill. & post- Gamawada (Aampara), P.S.Bhansi, Dist- ‘ South Bastar, Dantewada(C.G.). M.A. No. 100 OF 2006 APPELLANT National Insurance Company (NON-APPLICANT Limited, Branch omce, Near Head N63) Post Office. Jagadalpur, Through : Its Divisional Manager, Divisionai Office, Taha Complex, Ring Road no.2; Bilaspur (C.G.). Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Jogi Bhaskar SIO Late Sonuram (APPLICANTS) Bhaskar, aged-29 f/j« Anil Bhaskar S/O Late Sonuram Bhaskar, aged-1 0 years Rajan SIO Late Sonuram Bhaskar aged-7 years Gobar Singh Bhaskar SIO Late Sonuram Bhaskar aged- 5 years 5. Simnar S/O Late Sonuram Bhaskar aged- 9 years 6. Pandru SIO Masa Bhaskar aged-5 years 7. Budhari IO andaru Bhaskar aged-46 years “V W P MA. No. 101 OF 2006 APPELLANT National Insurance Company (NON-APPLICANT Limited, Branch Ofnce, Near Head No.3) Post Ofnce, Jagadaipur; Through : Iis Divisional Manager, Divisional Oflice, Taha Complex, Ring Road no.2, Bilaspur (C.G.). Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Joga Bhaskar Slo Durga Bhaskar, aged-25 years, RIO vill. & post Gamawada (Aampara), P.S. Bhansi Distt. South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) (APPLICANT) Ravishankar SIO Gajaluram Bhaskar, RIO ‘-vill. '8‘ “post- Gamawada (Aampara), P.S.-Bhansi, District-South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) (NON-APPLICANT No.1 ) , Respondent No.2 to 5 are minor, through ad [item guardian-Mother Smt. Jogi Bhaskar-Respondent No.1 Ali are RIO vill. & post- Gamawada (Aampara). P.S.-Bhansi, District- South Bashr, Dantewada (C.G.) (NON-APPLICANT 8. Ravish'ankar S/O Gajaluram No.1) Bhaskar. R/O- vill & post- Gamawada (Aampara); Rs. Bhansi, Dish.- South Bastar, Dantewada(C.G.) (NON-APPLICANT 9. Gajalurém Bhaskar S/O Pandu No.2) Bhaskar, ' ’R/O- vill. & post- Gamawada(Aampara), P.S.Bhansi, Distt.-South Bastar, Dantewada (.C.G.). (NON-APPLICANT No.2) 3. Gajaluram Bhaskar SIO Pandu Bhaskar, RIO- vill. & post- Gamawada(Aampara). P.S.Bhansi, Distt.—South ‘ Bastar, Dantewada(C.G.). MA. No. 99 OF 2006 National Insurance Company Limited. Branch Office, Near Head Post Office, Jagadalpur, Through : lfs Divisional Manager Divisional ,omce,’ Taha Complex. 'Ring Road no.2, Bilaspur (C.G.). APPELLANT (NON-APPLICANT No.3} RESPONDENTS (APPLICANT) Versus 7 Pandaru Bhaskar SIO Masa Bhaskar, aged-51 years. RIO Viil. & Gamawada P.S. (NON-APPLICANT No.1) Gamawada(Aampara), P.S.-Bhansi, District-South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.)r Gajaiuram Bhaskar S/O Pandu Bhaskar. « R/O— viii. & post- Gamawada (Aampara), P.S.Bhansi, Disit.-South Bastar, Dantewada (cm. (NON-APPLICANT N02) APPELLANT (NON-APPLICANT no.3) .M.A. No. 102 OF 2006 National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Near Head Post Office, Jagadalpur, Through : lts Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Taha Complex, Ring Road no.2, Bilaspur (C.G.). Versus , Bhansi, Distt. South Basiar, Dantewada (C.G.) 2. Ravishankar SIO Gajaluram Bhaskar, RIO -viil. & post? Nando Kunjami SIC Sewa Kunjami, aged-5O years, RIO vill. & post Gamawada (Jampara), P.S. Bhansi. Distt. Sauth ‘Bastar. Dantewadar (C.G.) 1. \ (NON-APPLICANT No.1) 2. Ravishankar SIG Gajaluram Bhaskar, RIO -vEI!. & past- Gamawada(Aampara), P.S.-Bhansi, District—South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) (NON-APPLICANT No.2) V‘KGajaluram Bhaskar S/O Pandu Bhaskar, RIG vi". & post- Gamawada (Aampara), P.S.Bhansi, Distt.-South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.). Present : Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant ORAL ORDER (Passed on 20‘“ April, 2006) The following oral order of the Comt was passed by SR. NAYAK, CJ. Ali these appeals arise out of the same accident. The cantentions urged before the Court in all these appeals are also common. Hence, we clubbed all these appeals, heard them together and they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company which is appeltant in all these appeals would contend that the driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident did not have valid and effective license to drive the motor vehicle involved in the accident and he had only driving license to drive light motor vehicle. 3. We have perused the impugned awards. Though the above contention was taken in the written statement tiled by the Insurance Companyabefore the MACT, the burden cast on it was not satisfactorily xi discharged in the sense that the Insurance Company has utterly failed to establish that the driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident was «\guilty of any actionabte negligence due to which the accident took place. Secondly, learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that in M.A. No: 95/2006, wrong multiplier was applied. It is true that in that appeal, the claimant is the mother of the deceased and she was aged about 40 years on the date of accident. in that view of the matter, strictly speaking, the ‘MACT ought to have applied multiplier 16 for assessing ' loss of dependency, but, it has applied multiplier of 17. Only on that ground, we are not inclined to interfere with the award for the reason that the annual income of the deceased was taken at notional rate of Rs. 15,000/- for assessing loss of dependency which is on lower side. Thirdiy, it was meekiy contended that in terms of the policy, the insured could carry only four coolies in the vehicle, whereas, at the time of the accident it was found that there were six coolies. This contention was raised before the MACT and the MACT did not accept this contention as tenable on the ground that the policy produced before the MACT does not contain any— stipulation that the insured vehicle should not carry more than 4 persons. We are satisfied that what is awarded, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is just and reasonable compensation within the contemplation of the Motor Vehicle Act 1998. No grounds are made out to entertain these ‘ appeals. Therefore, all these appeals are dismissed. «r yaw [7% \ Sd/— Sdl- Chief Justice 1 Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge