(cause title taken from Case Information System)

Judgment on Board

1. The Insurance Company has preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award dated 06.12.2022 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Balod, District Balod (for short “the Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.119/2021, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.15,319,753/- along with interest @ 9% per annum on account of the death of Ishwari Lavatrei in a motor accident.

2. Brief facts of the case are that deceased Ishwari Lavatre was a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-24-N-9244. On 19.09.2020, while she was travelling towards Orissa on the said motorcycle driven by her husband Chandrashekhar, along with her son Divyansh, near village Basanvahi, while descending from a bridge, the driver of the vehicle lost control and the motorcycle turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and, during the course of treatment, succumbed to the same on 23.09.2020.

3. A claim Petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the mother-in-law and two minor children of the deceased, pleading that at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 28 years and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. The Insurance Company filed its reply contending that the driver of the motorcycle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and that five persons were travelling on the motorcycle in contravention of the Motor Vehicles Rules. The Tribunal framed issues; parties led evidence and thereafter, the impugned award was passed.

4. Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the deceased, being the wife of Respondent No.4/registered owner of the vehicle, cannot be termed as a third party so as to maintain a claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He further contends that the recipient and the owner cannot be the same person and that the Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation. He prays for setting aside the impugned award.

5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the claimants opposed the Appeal and submitted that except the insured and the insurer, all other persons fall within the definition of “third party.” It is further submitted that the Tribunal has failed to award just and adequate compensation and, therefore, a cross-objection has been filed seeking enhancement. It is argued that the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month, which is on the lower side, and in absence of cogent proof of income, the minimum wages applicable to an unskilled labourer in the State of Chhattisgarh at the relevant time, i.e., Rs.9,120/- per month, should have been considered by the learned Tribunal. It is also contended that inadequate amounts have been awarded under conventional heads.

6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record carefully.

7. Recently, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, in M.A No.293/2023 in the matter of Ramdayal & Ors vs. has held that where single issue was involved, a view has been taken that except the insured and insurer, all are third party. The relevant paras are 10, 11, 12 & 16, which are as under:-

“10. The Madras High Court in case of Nallasivam (supra), while considering a similar issue observed that except the insured, all other would become third party. It will not make any difference that there was a relation of husband and wife between the deceased the owner and thus, directed