t 1 ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR .M. A..(ClNo. (S^) /2010 m^ ^" APPELLANT : ^NON-APPLICANT N0.3\ RESPONDENTS \^PPLICANTS[ The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through: Divisional Manager, First Flour Rama trader Centre, Near Bus Stand, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS Bihari Lal Dhruw S/o. Chintaram, aged 36 years, ^- 3.. R..R. Ns ns S51\-^ • «X^<«.'<( 3, N8.......... ;,;,;,,4 i.. Shri ..^^^ S:::...:^^^A^"— yNon-Applicant No. 1 Nqai-Applicant no. 2 ^ Chandrika Bai wife of Bihari Lal, aged 35 years, Ku. Pamitra D/o. of Bihari Lal, aged 13 years, Minor through guardian father Bihari Lal All Resident of village Vijaypur,Tahsil Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Ramesh Yadav, S/o. Onkar Prasad, aged about 22 years Itwari Sahu, S/o. Mewaram Sahu, aged about 40 years, Both are Resident of village Vijaypur,Tahsil Takhatpur, ^istt. Bilaspur (C.G.) MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTKi-J.73 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLEAVT ...-—-r^^ ,\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M, Qyddusi and Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Miscellaneous Appeal (C.) No.370 of 2010 Appellant versus Respondents The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Bihari Lal Dhruw and others ^» Present: Shri A.K.Athaley, counsel for the appellant. Shri R.K.Jain, counset for respondents No.1 to 3. None for other respondents. Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act ORAL ORDER (Passedonl 9th April, 2011) Per i.lVI. Quddusi, J.: Heard. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited against the award dated 23-2-2010 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No.86/2008. 3. Case of the claimants, as stated in the claim petition, is that on the date of accident, i.e., 1-3-2008, deceased Teklal Dhruw along with others, under the instructions of non-claimant No.2 Itwari Sahu, were coming back from Village Lalpur in non-claimant No.2 Itwari Sahu's tractor bearing registration No.CG 10 A 2060 and trolley bearing registration No.CG 10 A 2061 after loading Gitti 'm the trolley. Due to rash and negligent driving ofthe tractor and trolleyby 2 {^\ non-claimant No.1 Ramesh Yadav, the deceased fell down from the tractor near new culvert over Dhobbhatti Canal and crushed under the wheels of the trolley. On account of the grievous injuries sustained in the accident, the deceased died. The incident was reported to the Police Station Lormi. Theclaimants, i.e., father, mother and sister of the deceased preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') claiming compensation of Rs.7,33,000/-. 4 . The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- in favour of the claimants holding liability to satisfy the award on non-claimant No.3 insurance company. 5. The deceased was an occupant of the tractor. There was no sitting capacity except for one person, i.e., for the driver. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company has submitted that the labourer was covered only for the purpose of loading and unloading of the material and not for travelling as there was no sitting capacity and the labourer could not have travelled while sitting on the tractor or trolley. The deceased also could not have come within the category of third party, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. The argument raised by learned counsel for the appellanVinsurance company, to ouropinion, has force. The occupant of the tractor in question cannot come within the category of third party. Therefore, the insurance company could not have been held liable to pay the compensation. ^yy^^ .^;'^'..:-&."'^^s yy% '^ Is •^ "t:^..^v c -^^ 7. In view of the above, we allow the instant appeal in part and set aside the part of the impugned award by which the insurance company has been held liable to pay the compensation. The insurance company is, therefore, exonerated from its liability of payment of the compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. A cross-objection has ' also been filed by the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 in the appeal for enhancement of the amount of award. 9. We have considered the cross-objection. The deceased was a bachelor, therefore, his parents' average age would be considered. The age of the father and mother of the deceased was 38 years and 35 years, respectively, therefore, their average age comes to 37 years. A multiplier of 15 shall be applicable following the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sar/a Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121. The income of the deceased was Rs.3,000/- per month, i.e., Rs.36,000/- per year. 50% of his income shall be deducted for his personal and living expenses, as the deceased was a bachelor. Therefore, the only remainder comes to Rs.18,000/- and after applying multiplier of 15, loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,70,000/-. Besides this, the parents have lost a young boy aged about 19 years, therefore, the parents are entitled to get Rs.10,000/- each for loss of love and affection. Claimant No.3, i.e., minor sister of the deceased is also entitled to get Rs.5,000/- for loss of love and affection. The claimants are also entitled to get Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for funera! o Ct' "^ ^ ^- expenses. Therefore, total amount towards other heads comes to Rs.35,000/-. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to get total compensation of Rs.3,05.000/-. 10 . The cross-objection is, therefore, allowed in part and the amount of compensation is enhanced to the above extent. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. It is hereby clarified that it will be open for the claimants to realize the amount of compensation from the owner of the tractor and Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gopal IN»