]NshRIBraw BEFORETHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAniSGARH BILASPUR M.A.(C) N0. /2008 APPELLANT DEFENDANT N0.3 VERSUS 1. RESPONDENT 'CLAIMANT N0.1 RESPONDENT 2. -<;LAIMANTNQ.2 . ^ RESPONDENT 9. L_ CLAIMANT N0.3 ..-. <^ ^...-•"^r ^^•••" • 'Y ^? <?.• V RESPONDENT DEFENDANT N0. 4- ^" RES.PONDENT :ENDANT N0.2 /The Oriental Insurance Company, Korba through its Divisional Manager, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) Smt. Susheela Bai, widow of Late Chandra Ram Sahu, aged about 30 years, Laxmi Narayan Sahu, aged about 16 years (Minor) Son of Shri Chandra Ram Sahu Ku. Savitri daughter of Late Chandra Ram Sahu, aged about 14years (Minor) Respondents / Claimanfs No.1 & 2 (Minors) through their natural guardian - Smt. Susheela Bai, widow of Late Chandra Ram Sahu, aged about 30 years, Respondents / Claimants, R/o. of village Nawagaon, Tahsil and Distt Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Umashankar Yadav, agecj about 38 years, son of Shri Heera Lal Yadav, resident of Nawgawan, Tph. And Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Lakhan Prasad Sahu, aged about 58 years, son 6f Sant Ram Sahu, resident of Nawgawan, Tah & Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) "^ \- MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MQTOR VEHICLEACT,1988 r" y/ ^ ^ ^ HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISQARH. BIU PUR DB: Hoa'ble I. M. QUDDU8I 85 Hoa'Me G. MIHHAJUDDIN, JJ APPEUANT: RESPONDENT8: M.AtCl. No. 688/2008 The Oriental Insurance Coinpaav Ltd. Vs. Raahu Lal Sahu and others APPBLtANT: RE8PONDENT8: MA(C). No. 690/2008 Thc Oriental Insuraace Coinpany Ltd. Vs. Roop Siugh aad others APPBLLANT: RBSPONDBNT8: MAIQ. Bo.955/2008 The Oriental Insurance Conipanv Ltd. Vs. Sm.t. Susheela Bai and otiiers MI8C. APPEIAL8 XJNDER 8EM VBHICLBS ACT. 1QSS r3 OF THE MOTOR Appearance: Mr. Shaileudra Sharma, counsel for the Appellaat/ Oriental Insurance Coinpany Ltd. in aU the appeals. Mr. Parag Kotecha, counsel fcr respondent No. 1 Raghulal in M.A(C). No.688/2008, respondent no. 1 Roop Singh in M.A(C).No. 690/2008 and respondents 1 to 3 Smt Sushila Bai and others ia M.A{C).No.955/2Q08, Pe»I.M. OUDDUSI. J. ORAL ORDBR (Q7.07.2011) •V 1. Siace these appeals arise out of fhe same accident inet wifh Uy Tractor & Trollcy bearing Regn. Nos. C.G.Oll-ZG/4933 & • C.G.011-ZG/4934, fhey are beiug disposed ofby this conunon ^\^<-' \l^l •V •*>. order. The Second Addl, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (C.G), has passed the conunon award on 11.12.2007 in Claim Case Nos.40/2006, 39/2006 & 41/2006 agamstwhich fhese appeals have been filed chaUenguig the liabiUty iiaposed upon the appeUartt/Insuraace Coinpauy. M.A(C).No. 688/2008 relates to Claim Case No.40/2006 filed by 1^,t injured Raghulal. M.A(C). 690/2008 relates to Claim Case No.39/2006 fited by claunaat injured Roop Singh. M.A(C). 955/2008 relates to claim Case No.41/2006 filed by the legal representatives/dependents naiuely Sint. Sushila Bai and others for fhe deafh ofdeceased Chandra Ram Sahu. Brief facts of fhe case as per fhe version of the claimaats are that on 14.02.2004 iajured Roop Singh. Raghulal Sahu aud deceased Chaudra Ram Sahu were traveling as labourcrs in Tiactor TroUev bearmg Regn. No. C.G.011-ZG/ 4933 & C.G.01-ZG/4934. They were going from Naila to Navgawa. On the way at about 6.00 p.in., near Bokaraaiuda canal, the said vehlcle which was aUegedly driven by non-appUcant no. 1 UinashatLkar Yadav in rasb aad negUgent inamaer turaed turtle, as a result ofwhich, deceased Chandra Raia Sahu died on the spot wrhereas the other claiinants Roop Singh and Raghulal have sustained iujuries and became permanenfly disabled. •The Claims Tribunal held that the Vehicle ia question was involved in the accideut, as a result of which, Chandraram Satiu died aad ofher claimante sustained iuiurics and became pennanentlv disabled and fhus having regard to fhe inaterial • '.; \ '*. r-.;. \ \: on record and the evidence led by the parties, it has awarded respective coinpensations, which fhe claimants are entifled to receive fix>in fhe non-appUcaats jointly and severaUy. 5. Leamed coiuisel for the appellant submits that the deceased as weH as uijured aU were occupaats of the Trolley where the're was no seatmg capacity aud as such there was breach of Insurance PoU.cy. On fhe other hand. leamed counsel for the respondent clainiants subnuts that though earller the deceased as weU as injured were occupante of the TroUey but at one point of tune they got dowa from the Trolley aud were goiag by walk and as such they were treated as thud party. 6. We have heard learaed counsel for the parties at lengfh and have also gone fhrough the records of the Tribunal. It is apparent froin the claim petitions ia which it has been speci&caUy inentioned fhat the deceased/injured claunaats were oecupaats of fhe Tractor & Trolley when the accident took place. Besides this, the PoUce had also conducted investigation and a final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C., that is chai^e sheet was filed ia the Court Conclusion of the investigation was that the deceased as weU as iniured were sittmg in fhe TroUey at the time of the accident and as such they could not have beeu treated as thud partv. There was no iasuraace of fhese persons and they w'ere gratuitous passengers for which the iasurance CoiapaDy could not have been held liable to pay coinpensation. 7. In view of fhe above, we allow aU the three appeals and exonerate the Insurance Coinpany finin the UabiUty to pay fhe amount of coinpensations. However. learned cozuisel for fhe X appeUant(s) as weU as Claitnants have submitted that the amounts have ah-eady been paid by the Insurauce Coinpaay. therefore, it wiU be open for the Insiu-ance Coinpaay to reaUze fhe same from. the owner of the vehicle i.e., Tractor aud TroUev as the owner is held liable to pay conipensation. 8. The cross-objections have been ffled by the claimante for enhaucement of the coinpensations, but we have foiuid that the multiplier appUed m Claim Case No.41/2006 & 40/2006 relatmg to M.A(C). No.955/2008 & M.A(C).688/ 2008 in respect of deceased Chandra Ram. Sahu who was aged in between 35 and 40 years and injured naiaely Raghulal who was aged ia between 35 aad 37 years, was not proper as fhe Claiins Tribunal has appUed the multiplicr 16 whereas accordiag to the niultiplier scale prescribed by Hon'bte the Supreme Court in Scu-Ia Vemwt's and others - Vs- BeUd. Tremsffort Corporatfon and cuiother (2009) 6 SCX! 121. iiiultiplier 15 wa^ Uable to be appUed as the deceased and injured were withia the aye group of 36 to 40 years. Therefore, fhere is no ground to enhaace the amount of coinpeusation, F'urfhcr there is no chatlenge to fhe quaatuin part iu these appeals and as such we are not considermg whefher fhe amount of coinpensation has been assessed excessive or not, but ia any case the same M not Uable to be enliaaced. Therefore, the cross objections are dismissed. 9. In fhe result, the appeals are aUowed. No order a? to costs. Rao^ SA'- I.M.Quddusi Judge G.Minhajjudin Judge