A. K. MATHUR, C. J.

( 1 ) ALL the aforesaid three appeals arising out of the same accident, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) ON 17. 6. 1991 the deceased Tularam sahu, husband of claimant, Hemlata Sahu, who was driving a scooter, was going from Arang to his village Sundi. The non-claimant Ramadhar, who was on a cycle, met with an accident with the scooter as a result of which, the scooterist Tularam fell on the ground and received injuries. He was immediately taken to Primary Health centre, Arang and thereafter he was shifted to D. K. Hospital, Raipur. It is alleged that during treatment he died. Therefore, a claim petition was filed by his wife, son and daughter claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,02,000.

( 3 ) THE non-claimant Ramadhar has remained ex parte. The scooter was insured with the insurance company and the insurance company contested the claim that the scooter was insured for third party; therefore, the deceased, who died in the said accident, being the owner of the scooter, was not insured by the insurance company. As per the policy of the insurance company, the deceased scooterist was not liable to be compensated by the insurance company.

( 4 ) THE Claims Tribunal on the basis of the evidence, framed six issues. The learned Claims Tribunal found that the claimants were the heirs of the deceased. The learned Claims Tribunal held that the accident took place on account of negligence of the non-claimant Ramadhar as a result of which the deceased died. The learned Claims Tribunal further found that the scooter was insured with the insurance company and held that since it was comprehensively insured, therefore, the insurance company is liable to compensate the heirs of the deceased. The learned Claims tribunal also found that the age of the deceased was 28 years and he was getting a salary of Rs. 1,754 per month; therefore, the annual income of the deceased was rs. 21,048 and after deducting 1/3rd of the monthly income towards his personal expenses, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 14 and worked out the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,96,448 and Rs. 10,000 was awarded for loss of consortium. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 2,06,448 was awarded with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED against the award dated 23. 4. 1998, the insurance company filed an appeal (M. A. No. 774 of 1998 ). The contention of the insurance company was that the scooter was insured qua third party and the appellant did not insure the owner of scooter; therefore, the insurance company is not under any obligation to compensate the heirs of the deceased. The insurance company also filed an appeal (M. A. No. 58 of 1998) whereby it has also challenged the award dated 29. 8. 1997 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs. 25,000 towards no fault liability under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988, on the same grounds that since the scooter in question was insured qua third party; therefore, the insurance company is not liable to compensate the owner of the scooter.

( 6 ) MISC. Appeal No. 814 of 1998 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation. Hence, all the aforesaid appeals are tagged together for disposal.

( 7 ) THE first and foremost question is whether the claimants of the deceased are entitled to be compensated or not.

( 8 ) MR. Ruprah, learned counsel for the insurance company, has urged before us that the insurance policy only covers risk in respect of death of or bodily injury or damage to any property of a third party and not the insured himself. The learned counsel has specifically invited our attention to section 147 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988, and submitted that the term of policy is that it ensures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) ; against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any prop

Click Here to Read the rest of this document