IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 M. A. (C) N0. (^$'&F2008 APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS r^t r^^&^ ...v^"%'"'' *a.-"L^ .\-r^ u 2. ^^ 1. Santram Dewangan Son of Late Shri Kanhaiyalal Dewangan, aged aboutSO years, Caste Koshta; Smt. Rambati Wife of Shri Santram Dewangan, agedabout 46 years; Both resident of Village Silghat, Police Station Bhakhara, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.). VERSUS Bodhan Sinha Son ofShri Premlal Sinha, Resident of Village Silghat, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.). The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Near Adarsha Bal Vidya Mandir, Dhamtari, Tahsil and DistrictDhamtari (C.G.). MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT,1988 RESPONDENTS 1. 2. /? ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker M.A. (0 No. 656/2008 APPELLANTS/ CLAIMANTS RESPONDENTS Santram Dewangan & another VERSUS Bodhan Sinha & another % Shri P.P. Sahu counsel for the appellants. Shri Sunil Sahu counsel for respondent No.1 Shri SudhirAgrawal counsel for respondent No.2. APPELLANT/ NON-CLAIMANT N0.1 RESPONDENTS/ CLAIMANTS M.A. (C) No. 1110/2008 Bodhan Sinha VERSUS Santram Dewangan & others Shri Sunil Sahu counsel forthe appellant. Shri P.P. Sahu counsel for respondent No.1 & 2. Shri SudhirAgrawal counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (25.04.2014) As these two appeals arise outof the same accident as well as the same award dated 03.04.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the "Tribunal") Dhamtari, in Claim Case No. 127/2007, they are disposed of by this common order. t- 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 26.06.2007 when deceased persons namely Rajesh Kumar and Kumesh Kumar were refurning"to yillage Silghat on motorcycle bearing registration No. r <<€b:>'s3's<% ^/ 2. ^ -€ :^ .u^ '<; CG-05-C/3160, it was hit against a stone as a result of which both , of them sustained grievous injuries on their bodies and died on the spot itself. The said motorcycle, at the relevant time, was owned and driven by deceased Kumesh Kumar whereas deceased Rajesh Kumar was sitting on it as a pillion rider. 3. Claim case was filed by the claimants who are father and mother of the deceased Rajesh Kumar claiming compensation of Rs. 6,57,000/- inter alia pleading that deceased Rajesh was engaged in the tailoring work and thereby he was having monthly income of Rs. 3,000/-, he was aged about 23 years and as the vehicle was duly insured with respondent/insurance company, suitable compensation may be awarded to them. hlowever, by the award impugned the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1;12,000/- in favour of the claimants with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Tribunal has further held that as deceased Rajesh was sitting as pillion rider and no separate premium was paid for him, liability to satisfy the claim cannot be fastened on the insurance company and thus the Tribunal exonerated it of its liability. It is this award which has been put to challenge in these appeals. 4, MA No. 656/2008: This appeal has been preferred by the claimants on the following grounds: (i) That the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. (ii) That the Tribunal has committed an error while assessing the ' annualiricome ofthe deceased as Rs. 15,000/- because even F--1- 1 '<:~-^-;7''' ^ 's'1^y ^' if the notional income prevailing at the relevant time is taken into consideration, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 3,000 and the annual as Rs. 36,000 and as the deceased was unmarried, half of his income is required to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. In other words, out of Rs. 36,000/-, the deceased can be said to have been spending Rs. 18,000 on himself and remaining half on his parents who are the daimants herein. (iii) That, the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. 5. Replying to the averments of the claimants, it has been argued by the counsel for the insurance company that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal isjust and proper. 6. MANo. 1110/2008: This appeal has been preferred by the owner of the vehicle on the following grounds: (i) That the insurance company has wrongly been exonerated of its liability to satisfy the claim. (ii) That the vehicle in question was insured under the package policy and therefore risk of the pillion rider is duly covered with it vide Ex. D-2. 7. Replying to these averments it has been argued by the ^ counsel for the insurance company that the Tribunal has been x v justified in exonerating the insurance company of the liability to pay •^ •J. ...-.^. A^. ^f the sum awarded by the Tribunal. c>' \: i^': 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 9. As regards MA No. 1110/2008, undisputedly the motorcycle was duly insured under Ex. D-2 which is a package policy. It is a settled legal position that if the vehicle is duly insured under a package policy, risk of the pillion order is also covered irrespective of the fact that separate premium was paid or not. Even the office of the insurance company has issued a circular dated 27.11.2009 in respect of covering the risk of pillion order. Thus in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Yashpal Luthra and another v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and another reported in 2011 ACJ 1415 and considering the aforesaid circular, the finding of the Tribunat exonerating the insurance company is notcorrect and accordingly it is set aside. It is held that it is the insurance company which has to satisfy the claim. 10. As regards MA No. 656/2008, the assessment of the income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per annum is not correct. Even taking the notional income prevailing at the relevant time, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 36,000. Tribunal has further gone wrong in assessing 2/3 of the income towards loss of depehdency. Since the deceased was unmarried and the claimants are his parents, 50% of the income has to be taken towards personal and living expenses ofthe deceased and remaining 50% towards contribytion to the claimants which comes to Rs. 18,000. ^ ^- Further, the multiplier of 17 applied by the Tribunal is not as per the guidelines of the Apex Court in the matter of Sar/a Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121 because at the time of accident the deceased was 23 years of age and therefore correct multiplier to be applied in this case is 18. Total loss of dependency thus applying the multiplier of 18 comes to Rs. 3,24,000/-. Likewise, the compensation awarded under conventional heads also appears to be inadequate and that being so it is enhanced to a lump sum of Rs. 50,000 from that of Rs. 27,000. The total compensation awardable to the claimants comes to Rs. 3,74,000/-. After deducting Rs. 1,12,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal, the enhanced compensation comes to Rs. 2,62,000 which would carry the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application. 11. It is the insurance company which shall pay the entire award amount. If any amount has been deposited by the insurance company, same would be adjusted while satisfying the award. 12. • Considering the fact that the accident had taken place in the year 2007 and the claimants have not received any amount, the insurance company shall deposit the entire award amount within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 13. Appeals are thus allowed to the extent indicated^above^ X Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge