An 'Act Only Policy' does not cover occupants in a vehicle, and courts must assess compensation based on established minimum wage standards and proper multipliers.

JUDGMENT :

RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL, J.

1. Since all above captioned appeals arise out of the same accident that occurred on 02.04.2011, therefore, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. As per averments in claim petitions, on the fateful day of 02.04.2011 at 3:30 pm, the deceased Jagendrapal and Murariram along with other passengers were travelling in the Maruti Car 800 bearing registration CG/04/B/7418 (for short, the offending vehicle) and were going to village Naargaon, as soon as the the said car reached to Dhamtari road between the villages Jagtara and Jamruva, Non- applicant No.1 – Santosh Kumar Jain drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, the said car overturned, as a result of which, the passengers including Jagendrapal received serious injuries whereas Murariram has died, however, Jagendrapal was referred to Government Hospital, Daundi and then to B.S.P.Hospital, Sector-9 and ultimately he was referred to Shahid Hospital Dallirajhara where he died on 12.06.2011 during course of treatment.

3. Owing to death of Jagendrapal, his legal heirs, i.e., wife Smt. Seema, minor daughter Khushabu and parents, had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the MV Act), registered as Claim Case No. 63/2014, seeking total compensation of Rs.20,54,000/- on various heads, inter alia, stating that at the time of accident, he was aged about 30 years and was earning Rs.130/- per day by working as labourer.

Similar claim petition was also filed, which was registered as Claim Case No. 64/2014, by the wife Manki Bai, minor daughters and parents, legal representatives of deceased Murariram, and in claim petition, they sought total compensation to the tune of Rs.19,34,000/- on various heads, inter alia, stating therein that at the time of accident, the deceased Murariram was 30 years age and was earning Rs.200/- per day and Rs.6,000/- per month, by working as mason.

It is not disputed that at the time of accident, Non-applicant No.1 was possession holder and was driving the offending vehicle Car, Non-applicant No.2 was the registered owner whereas Non-applicant No.3 was the insurer of the offending vehicle. However, the facts that Non-applicant No.2 sold the offending vehicle to Non-applicant No.4 – Sky Automobiles and the said Non-applicant No.4, in turn, sold the same to Non-applicant No.5 Mohd, Nizam, are also not disputed.

The claim petitions were resisted by the Non-applicants by filing their written statements separately. Claimants and Non-applicants led their evidence, oral and documentary.

4. After appreciating the evidence, oral as well as documentary, brought on record, the learned Claims Tribunal, vide award dated 28.08.2015, held Non- applicant No.1/driver – Santosh Kumar jain liable for cause of accident; on account of such accident deceased persons – Jagendrapal and Murariram sustained grievous injuries and died; Non-applicant No.3-United India Insurance Company Limited could not prove breach of policy conditions; assessed and awarded total compensation of Rs.4,62,000/- in claim case No. 63/2014 and Rs.4,67,000/- in claim case No. 64/2014, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realisation while fastening the liability upon the Non- applicants jointly or severally and further held Non-applicant No.3 / insurance company primarily liable as it could not prove the violation of policy conditions.

5. Being aggrieved by the award dated 28.08.2015, the insurer, i.e., Non- applicant No.3 – United India Insurance Company Limited has preferred two appea