^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR M.A.CONO. ^^S ^2008DivisionBandi APPELLANT l^r^Applicant No. 3 'The New India Assurance Company Pvt. Ltd. Through Djvisional Manager, Division Office, Raipur (C.G.) RES?PONDENTS 'ApDlicants VERSUS : -\ 0 Smt. Triveni Sahu \N/o. Shri Birjhu Ram Sahu, aged about 45 years R/o. Birgaon/P.S. Urla, Tahsil ^ Distt. Raipur (C.G.) \ ^..^>- \^.W^^- shri Birjhu Ram Sahu; S/o ^ <..-f^T .-••"".l^ .^"J^.A-<0& ^^ Late ^amadhin Sahu, aged ^^A^ .-<<;lt ^ about 48 years, R/o. Birgaon, P.S. Urla, Tahsil & '^••" Non-ApDlicant No. t Raipur (C.G.) Ku. Santoshi Sahu, D/o. Shri Birjhu Ram Sahu, aged about 16 years, Through - natural guardian father Birjhu Ram Sahu R/o. Birgaon, P.S. Urla, Tahsil & Raipur (C.G.) Jageshwar Yadav, S/o Somnath Yadav, aged about 32 years, R/o Tamcisivnim, P.S. Aarang, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Drive of C.G. -04- ZC-7376) ^- ^" Premnath Arora, S/o Lubhaaya Ram Arora, aged about 54 years, R/o Puran Road Lines Station Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ^ MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UJMDER_SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT HI&H COURT OF CHHATriS^<4ftH <4T BILASPUK DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QU&&USI d HONeBLE MR. PR^SH^NT KUM^ft MISHM. JJ. APPELLANT M.A.fa N0.^63 OF 2008 The New India Assurance Company Pvt. Limited. Versus RESPON&ENTS : Smt. Triveni Sahu and others. Pr®s@fit s Shri A.K. Athaley, counsel for the appetlant. Shri ^wadh Tripathj, counsel for the respondents No.l to 3. Shri yishwanath Go^wo^i, Advocate for respondent No,4 & 5. OML OR&ER (11th January, 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi. J. 1. The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal against the award ciated 07.04.2008 possed in Claim Co.se No. 88/2007 by the learned 11 Additional Motor Accident Clalms Tribunal, (FTC), Raipur (for short ^the Tribunal') altowing the ciaim cipplication of the daimants« 2. The appetlant-Insurance Company had challenged the impugned award mainly on the ground of quantum and in this regard permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 (for short lthe Tnbunali5 has been granted to the appellant. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that on 1-03-2007 at about 5.30 p.m. in the evening Dipak Sahu (since deceased) vyas returning to his house on his motor cycle bearing registration No. C&04-CF-626Z When he reached near ftajput Hotel, at that time truck bearing registration No.C604-ZC-7376, driven by respondent No.4 herein in a rash and negligent manner, dashed his motoncycfe as a result he sustained various injuries on his body and died on the spot. Report of the incident was lodged in the Police Station Urla, District Raipur whereupon offence under Section 304A of the IPC was registered against driver ofthe vehicle, Th©claimants, who are parents and sister of the deceased:: have clasmed comeensation of fts.35:10:000/N on th< ^ \ ground that they were dependents on the deceased, who w/as the sole ©arningmember in family, and due to his death, they have suffered loss of income. 4. The iearned Tribunal, after considering the issues framed by it, awarded a sum of Rs.6,31,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the opplication. §. Learned counsel for the appellant-inisurance company argued that without there being any cogent evidence regarding Jncome of the deceased the Tribunal has assessed the monthly of the deceased at Rs.6000/-. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in deducting only 1/3 towards the personal expenditure of the deceased, w/ho was a bacheior. In the facts and circumstQnces of the present case, the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is also not proper. 6. On the other hond, learned advocates QppeQring on behaif of the respondents have supported the impugned award. 7, We have heard iearned counsel for the porties csnd perused the records of the tribunal as also the findings given in the impugned awoird. 8. On careful examination of the impugned award, we find that to assess the annual loss of income the Tribunal has deducted only 1/3 of th®income of the deceased towards his personal living expenditure of the deceased, whereas as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Sarh VensQ (Swt.) snd efhers -ys- £>efhi TrcMsporf Corporcstion Qfict a/wtfmr reported in (^009) 6 S€€121, to arrive at the contribution to the dependants, if the deceased is a bachelor, 50% deduction towards his personal expenditure should be mo.de from his income css it is assumed that a bachebr would tend to spend more on him cxs self-maintenance. Thus, the Tribunal has committed a mistake in deducting only 1/3 towords personal expenditure and it should have deducted 50%. 9. Considehng the age of the parents of the deceosed, %rhich was 48 & 45 years respectively at the time of accident, average of which would come more than 45 years, we are of the opinion thot the multiplier applied by the ^'. Tribunal in the present case is not proper for the reason that as per judgment of Sarla Vermrfs case (supra), for age group of 46 to 50 years, the highest multiplier applicabie is 13. 10. Thus, after deducting 50% from the annuat income of the deceased i.e. fts.72,000/- as assessed by the Trjbunal, the annual ioss of income wouJd come to Rs.36,000/- and by applying multiplier of 13, the total ioss of dependency w/ould come to Rs.4,68^000/- (36000x13). BesicJes this, the claimants are also entitled to get Rs.5,000/- towards funerai expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate A fts.5,000/- each towards loss of love d affection and thus, the total amounts for which the claimants would be entitleci for under other heads comes to Rs.30,000/-, Accordingly, in all the ciaimants are entitied to receive a sum of Rs.4,98,000/-n as compensation for the death of deceased Djpak Sahu. 11. In the result, the appeal is partiy allowed, the impugned award is modify to the extent that now the claimants/respondent No.l to 3 shafi beentitleci to get Rs.4,98,000/- as compensation in ptace of Rs.6,31,000/-. They shall also be entitled for interest @ 6% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of filing of application till actual payment is made. Rests of the conditions imposed by the Thbunal in the impugned award shait remain intact. 12. The appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No order as to cost. __^^^-— Roshan/- Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge y