^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANTS y, RESPONDENTS M.A.No. 1040/2004 1. Pramod Kumar Manjwar, aged about 28 years, S/o Krishana Ram Munjwar In front of I.T.I. Office, Gidam, Distt. Dantewada (Driver) 2. Ramesh Kumar Surana, aged about 26 years, S/o Shankar Lal Surana Main Godown Road, Distt. Dantewada. 3. Ammuram Sen, aged about 55 years S/o K.R.Sen, Near the Market Main Road Gidam Distt. Dantewada. VERSUS 1. Smt. Poyami Mangli W/o Poyami Joga aged about 30 years R/o Gudipara, Kandoli, Police Station Kodenar, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) 2.- Smt. Kondi, aged about 50 years W/o Poyami Fagu ^^^^.^^^^B^.W.^^'st^^fi^^ ^.^.^^^w^. 3. Laxman aged about 4 years S/o Late Poyami Joga through Guardian Mother Respondent No.l Smt. Mangli, All residence Village Gudipara, Kandoli, Police Station- Kodenar, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) 4. The United India Assurance Company Limited Near by Anupama, Talkies Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) MEMO — Anw" ITODER SECTTON 173 OF MOTOR VEHICI'E ACT 1988 ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ. Appellants Respondents/ M.A. No. 1040/2004 Pramod Kumar Manjwar and others Vs Smt. Poyami Mangli and others ^' Present: Mr. Sanjeev Verma, counsel for the appellants. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.4/insurance company. ..'t ORDER (Oral) (6th September, 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. This appeal has been filed.by the appellants against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Baster, Dantewada (in short "the Tribunal") dated 1st July, 2004 passed in Claim Case No. 107/03, insofar /as it has fastened the liabiiity to pay compensation on the appellants/owner ofthe vehicle. / 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.12.2002 Poyami Joga along with his friend Poyami Laxman was traveling in vehiclebearing registration No. CG 18 ZD/0106, which was being driven by appellant No.1. The driver/appellant No.1 drove thesaidvehicle in a rash and negligent manner near Baghmundi, Patel Para, as a result of which Poyami Joga was thrown out of the vehicle and sustained grievous injuries. Poyami Joga was taken to Primary Health Center, Geedam and thereafter, while being taken to Jagdalpur he died on the way. Report of the accident was lodged in Police Station : Geedam, on the basis of which Cr.No. 152/02 was registered and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dantewada. 3. At the time of accident, the deceased was 35 years of age and he used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month by doing labour work and from the business of cattle. Out ofthe said amount, he used to contribute /^•t ^^^^ 9 ^l^ Rs.2,500/- per month towards his family. Therefore, the claimants, who are widow, mother and minor son of the deceased, being his legal heirs filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act, 1988") claiming a total compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- for the death of Poyami Joga under various heads. 4. However, learned Tribunal, after close scrutiny of the evidence, oral and documentary, adduced by the parties, awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,98,000/- by fastening the liability upon the appellants/owner of the vehicle. The Tribunal has further directed that respondent No.4/insurance company shall, at the first instance, pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and thereafter, recover the same from the appellants/owner of the vehicle. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the lower court record (LCR) as well as the impugned award. 6. Since the vehicle in question was being used as taxi and the insurance policy of the vehicle was for private purposes, therefore, there was clear cut breach of insurance policy conditions and hence, the insurance company has rightly been exonerated from its liability. 7. With regard to the next point i.e. quantum, we have perused the assessment of the income made by the Tribunal and found that when there is no income proved of the deceased, it should have been treated, at the most, as Rs.2,000/- per month. Thus, in the present case, since the income of the deceased has not been proved, therefore, bytaking his monthly income as Rs.2,000/-, the annual income comes to Rs.24,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal living expenses, the remainder comes to Rs.16,000/-. Since the age of the deceased was 35 years, therefore, according to the law laid down \n Sarla Verma (Smt.) Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, multiplier of 16 would be applicable. Thus, after applying the multiplier of 16, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,56,000/-. Besides this, the widow of the deceased is entitled to get Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, the claimants are entitled to get Rs.5,000/- towards •^s^ ':'%lg; •-•^:\,,^^.^ \J € loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. Thus, after adding Rs.15,000/- under the aforesaid heads towards the loss of dependency, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.2,71,000/-. However, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.3,98,000/-, which is excessive and therefore, the same is reduced to Rs.2,71,000/-. 8. In addition to the above, the claimants would be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum, in place of 9% per annum, on the amount of compensation from the date of filing of claim petition till its payment is made. 9. Out of the amount of compensation, the minor son of the deceased i.e. respondent No. 3 Laxman shall get Rs.2 lacs, which shall be kept in fixed deposit ina nationalized bank for a period of six years. Respondent No.2 Smt. Kondi, mother of the deceased, shall get Rs.50,000/-, which shall be directly paid to her. Respondent No.1, Smt. Poyami Mangli, widow of the deceased, shall get the remaining amount, including the amount of interest, which shall also be directly paid to her. 10. Since in compliance of the impugned award, respondent No.4/insurance company has already deposited the awarded amount by the Tribunal, liberty is given to the insurance company to recover the excess amount paid to the claimants. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the above extent, 12. No order as to costs. . - -—— Sd/- G.Minhajuddin Sd/- I.M. QudAusi Judge Judge f1