The court established that compensation for minors in motor accident claims must be just and reasonable, emphasizing the insurer's initial liability to pay despite policy breaches, allowing for subsequent recovery from the owner.

JUDGMENT :

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. As all the five appeals arise out of same accident and common question is involved in it, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Challenge in all these appeals is to the award dated 13.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case Nos.193/2016, 190/2016, 189/2016, 192/2016 and 191/2016, respectively whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application of the claimants in part, awarded Rs.2,55,000/- as total compensation in each claim applications and fastened the liability for payment of compensation to the non-applicants therein jointly and severally.

3. It is an admitted fact that after issuance of notice, the claimants have preferred five cross-appeals for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal.

4. Brief facts of these appeals, in a nutshell, are that, on 17.10.2015 at about 12.30 PM, Fageshwar Yadav, Ku. Bharti, Ku. Punni Dhruw, Girjashankar Sahu and Ku. Khushi Sahu along with other students of the School were going to Sonai-Rupai Temple in Tractor bearing registration No.CG-04/HK/5789 and Trolley bearing registration No.CG-04/HX/5157 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’). When they reached Village Gunderdehi, the offending vehicle turned turtle in slope on account of rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No.1, due to which 5 children, namely Fageshwar Yadav, Ku. Bharti, Ku. Punni Dhruw, Girjashankar Sahu and Ku. Khushi Sahu fell down and sustained injuries and later, succumbed to the injuries suffered by them.

5. The parents of the deceased children filed claim applications on account of untimely death of their children namely Fageshwar Yadav, Ku. Bharti, Ku. Punni Dhruw, Girjashankar Sahu and Ku. Khushi Sahu being Claim Case Nos.193/2016, 190/2016, 189/2016, 192/2016 and 191/2016, respectively seeking compensation of Rs.26,50,000/- in each claim cases under different heads.

6. Non-applicant No.1/driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle filed his written statement and denied the averments made in the claim petition and pleaded that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was being insured with the Insurance Company, as such, the liability, if any would be fastened upon the Insurance Company.

7. The Insurance Company has filed its separate written statement denying the fact of accident and pleaded that on the date of the alleged accident, the offending vehicle was not insured with the Insurance Company, as such, the insurance Company is not liable for any amount of compensation. It is further pleaded that the trolley bearing registration No.CG-04/HK/5157 was not permitted to carry any passengers, and no insurance premium was paid for covering the risk of any such passenger. Hence, Insurance Company cannot be held liable for any compensation arising from the death of persons travelling on the said trolley. It is also pleaded that the owner of the trolley did not possess a valid permit or fitness certificate for carrying passengers, nor was he authorized to operate the said offending vehicle as a transport vehicle for passengers. It has been lastly pleaded the Insurance Com