Appeal (Cl No. 152 of2013 v. Kajaibai & Ors.

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 152 of2013 APPELLANT/ (Non-applicant No.2) Ganesh, s/o Jugat Sharma RESPONDENTS (Applicant No.1) Versus Kajaibai and others, Miscellaneous appeal under Sectionl 73 of the Motor VehictesAct.1988 S.B: Hon'bte MrJustice N.KJlkaarwal Present : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, counsel for the appetlant. None for the respondents. AWAgD (OS.08.2013) Heard on admission. 2;' This is owner's appeat agaihst the award dated 02.01.2012, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kabirdhdm (towardha) (for short 'the Tribunal') in ctaim case No. 27/2010. / 3, As against the compensation of Rs.17,85,000/- claimed by unfortunate widow, sons and mother of deceased - Jai Singh by fiting claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ithe Act') for his death in the motor accident on 15.10.20(», ttie Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 12,30,000/- to the claimants along with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual payment.

4. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the eviidence led, hetd: the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tempo (offending vehicle) bearing registration No. G.G. 07 T-0675 by its driver i.e. r^pondent No. 5- Ashok Kumar @ Golu; Jai Singh died on account -^s^ '-^ ^ ~v. Sa.a.ae'Ka.. i <wsy '%^!! ''^wsmiy *%... fs>'1 of the injurfes sustained by him in the said accident; respondent No. 6/0rienfal Insurance Company Limited not liable for payment of compensation as owner of vehicle is guilty of violation of policy conditions; and assessed and awarded aforementioned sum as

5. Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel appearing for appellanVowner would submit: whiie awarding compensation of Rs.12,30,000/-, the Tribunal escaped consideration of the fact that one of the legal representatives of deceased Jai Singh was appointed by the Stats Govemment on compassionate ggound and, therefore, the amount of campensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be suitably reduced. tt was further contended that though the appellant was a registered ^wner of the offending vehicle but he sold,the same to driver Ashok Kumar @ Golu (respondent No.5) and, therefore, the Tribunat holding appettant/owner liable (or payment of coinpensation.

6. I have heard leamed counset for the appeltant and perused the material available on record including impugned award.

7. The facts that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent No. 5; respondent No. 6/lnsurance Company liabte for payment of compensatfon as the dnver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving llcence to drive the offending vehicle and that the appellant was registered owner of the vehicte, are now not in dispute.

8. The deceased was working as a Bore-well Operator with the State Governmentand was gettinggross salary of Rs.11,815/- per month and -^x""5'^'- ^ftsfe^ S 't- 'Q^ Rs.1,41.780/- per annum. The Tribunal after taking Into consideration the net salary of the deceased as Rs.9,470/- per month, deducted 1/3 of it towards his personal and living expenses; assessed claimant's dependency as Rs. 78,000 per annum; apptied muttiplier of 15 as the deceased was aged about 40 - 45years; and awrardal an amount of Rs. 11,70,000/- on account of loss of dependency. The Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 60.000/- on other heads, and thus, has awarded a total sum of Rs. 12,30,000/- as compensation atong with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till itsaitual payment.

9. Admlttedly, a scheme for "compassionate appointment" has been framed by the State Govemment. According to scheme, in case, employee dies in harness i.e. white in service leaving behind the dependents, one of the dependents may request for compassionate appointment to maintain the family of the deceasei!!/ employee dies in harnesss. This cannot be stated to be an advantagef receivable by the heirs on account of one's death and have no correlatibn with theamount receivabte under a statute occasioned on account of accidental death. Under above scheme, an employee dies in harness even in normat coure6, due to illness and to maintain the family of the deceased one of the dependents may beentitled for compassionate appointreent but that cannot be termed as "Pecuniary Advantage" that comes under the periphery of Motor Vehicies Act and any amount,received on such appointment liable for deduction for determination of compensation under the Motor Vehictes Act. (Please see Vimal Kanwar & 0/s.. Vs. Kishof-e Dan & Ors. reported in ACC 2013 Part Vtpage 752) .^- ' ^ t\ ;@a ^;.-^'^ /Q^. \ 'y

10. In view of above settied legal position, the Tribunal has not erred in not taking into consideration the fact that one of the legal representatives of deceased Jai Singh was appofnted by the State Govemment on compassionate ground and, therefore, the first contention raised by Mr. Gupta is sans merit.

11. So far as other question rgised by Mr. Gupta is concerned, the same is also devoid of merit, inasmuch as, admittedly, nelther transferor nor transferee took any step for change of name of owner in certificate of registration, in view of said omission, transferor must be deemed to continue as owner of the vehicte for purpose of Act even though under civil law he would cease to be owner after sale of vehicle, liable to pay compensation. (Pfease See Pushpa alias Leela & others Vs. Shakuntala & others, reportedin AIR 2011 SC 682).

12. No other points have been raised. /

13. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the ^ppeal fails and is ~ 3ly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge