r-t c-^ IN THEHONBLEJfflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BE.ASPUR Misc. Appeal fC) No. ^ Cl /2009 ^^^C'ii^Jii M^?3L> <^>"i& APELLANTS NON-APPLICANTS 1. Girdhari Lal Pathak, S/o Bharat Lal Pathak, aged about 42 years, R/o village Kasdole, Tah. Kasdole, Distt. ^.H-.^)Raipur(c-G-) ^y,^--^ ^ GoverdhanPathak,S/oGirdhariLal _y". - ,..•>•• w'":. w ••"U^ta^ Pathak, R/o Daak Para, Kasdole, ?<^I--- Tah. Kasdole, Distt. Raipur(C.G.) a&'" VERSUS RESPONDENTS APPLICANTS 1. 1. L 2. ^ 3. ^ 4. ^-5. SonaBai, W/o Late Dashrath Yadav, aged about 60 years, Rukhmani Bai, W/o Late Puna Ram Yadav, aged about 35 years, Bhanu Prakash, S/o Late Puna Ram Yadav, aged about 18 years, Minor Janu Prakash, S/o Late Puna Ram Yadav, aged about 15 years, Minor Basant Kumar, S/o Late Puna Ram Yadav, aged about 12 years, No. 4 and 5 are minor, fhrough their mother/natural guardian Rukhmani Bai, aged about 35 years, W/o Late Puna Ram Yadav, All R/o Village Kanji, Tahsil and Police Station.Baloda-Bazar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Presently residing at village Kasdole, Tah. Kasdole, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEmCLES ACT. 1988. ^A'-'^-— '-f HIGH COURTOF CaniATnSGARH, BIL^Pim DB: HON'BLE LM. QUDDUSI & HOWSLE PR&SHAMT KXHUAR MiaHGRA, JJ, M.A(ClNo.839 OF 2009 Vs. MISC. APPEAL U/S 1730FTHB MOTOR VNUOLBS ACT, 1988 APPEARANCB: Mr. Rakesh Pandey, counsel fbr the appeUant.5. Mr. Shivendu Pandya, counsel for the respondents. ^ORDERtORAU {21.02.203.1} Per I.M. QUDDlBSI._Jt, 1. Tbis appeal has been filed by fhe owner aad driver of the Motorcycle ^aiast fhe Mnpiigned award dated 04.04.2009 passed by the II Addl. Motor Accident Claiias Tribunal, Baloda Bazar, ia Claim Case No.22/2008 awardiag Rs.3,19,000/-. 2. Brief facts of fhe case as per the versioa of claimants are that on 14.09.2007 appellant no.2 Govardhan Pathak was driving ftie motorcycle of his fafher (appeBant no. 1) bearing .Rega. No.C.G.04/C.E./4168 and deceased I>una Ram was sitting as piUion rider. They were rettu-um'g to Kasdol fipoin Semriya. On the way at about 8.30 p.na., at Siripur road near -viBa%e Semriya Jatapafh, the said inotorcycle inct wifh accident due to rash and negUgent driving ofappellaat ao.2, as a result of which, Punaram sustataed iajuries &n lus bead, chest aad other parts of the body. He was brought to APPELLANTS Giridhari Lal Pafhak and anofher RESPOMDBNTS Sona Bai and others fhe Kasdol Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, he was brought to Anibedkar Hospital, Raipur where during the course of treatmcnt, he died on 19.09.2007. At fhe tune of accident, ttie deceased vras aged about 46 years. He was doiag labour works aud was eammg Rs.200/- per day. The claimants beiag legal representetives of fhe deceased have made a claiiu to the tune ofRs.10,65,000/- on vanous heads for the death of the deeeased. 3. The learned Claims Tribiinal fi-amed issue no.3 regaidiag the accident inet with by the Motorcycle on 14.09.2007 at about 8.30 p.m., and held that the deceased died in the said accideut when appeUant no.l was driviag it ia rash aad negl^ent maitaer. It Iias also deiued the contention of the appeUaiits fhat when appellant no.l was driving the niotorcycle steadUy, a wUd fox has suddenty coine before fhe motorcycle and in order to save the said animal, flie accidcnt took place aad ultimately, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,19,000/- which the claimants are entitled to receive fix>in fhe appellants. 4. Leamed counsel for fhe appeUant niainty contends fhat there was no negl^ence on fhe part of fhe driver and the award of the Tribunal is ateo on higher side. 5. Giridharilal (N.A.W.l) has stated ia his evidence fhat on 14.09.2007 at about 8.30 his son Govardtian was rctuming to Kasdol fl-om Semriya on motoreycle No.C.G.04/C.E./4l68 with dcceased Ptuiaram wfao was sittuig as piUion rider. On the way at vSlays Jatapath. &ue wild fox was crossiag the road fi?oia a (Ustance of 10 - 15 ft. In reply to a question yr ..-te, '..•-^s^ iL.^st 9 ^'^- raised by the Court, he stated ia para 17 ofhfa evidence that suddeiity a fox was runniag fioin left to r^ht side oftihie road and fhere was a pit on thc left side of the road where tfae accident took place. However, a perusal of the sight inap ESx. P. 10 shows fhat the pit was on the x%ht side of the road. Therefore, if ttie fox crossed the road fi30in teft sidc to the right side of the road, there was no uecessily to come on right side of the road where fhe pit was fhere according to the inap. Therefore, we do not see any perversity in the finding of fhe Tnbunal fhat the accident did not teke place while saving fhe fox when it has suddenty cnassed the road aad itwas due to negligence ofthe driver. 6. So far as it relates to quantuin, fhe learaed Tribuaal has taken fhe iacoiue of the deceascd as Rs. 100/ - per day aad Rs.3000/- per nionth which is not excessive. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3 towards personal aad living expenses. Hcwever, ia Sarla Venna (Smt.) anO. others -»s- Detti.i Transport CorportMon <md aiwttter rcporfed in (2009) 6 SCC 121 the Supremc Court held fhat one-fourth (l/4tb) should have been the standard deduction where the nuniber of dependeut fanuly aieinbers is 4 to 6. Therefore, after deducting l/4th towards persoDal expenses, fhe aanual loss of dependency would conie to Rs.27,000/-. SUK!C the deceascd was aged about 45-46 years, he was wifhia the age group of 46 to 50 years. Thercfore, accordiag to thc inultiplier scale given in para. 40 of Sarla Verma's case (supra), multipUer 13 should have been aiade applicable . which fhe Tribuiial has r^htly adopted. If we appfy the niultipUer 13, the total loss of dependency comes to ^"'^y^'-: :.'-, ^.;..,,':"'''^ K ''.^^^ J-^ ^ • %K.- ^ y •"••-.-••*• ..'':•" ^ "?l.-^ 7. Rs.3,51,000/- (Rs.27,000 x 13). The Tribunal has also graated Rs.2,000/- for ftmeral expenses and Rs.5000/- for loss of consordum to fhe wife which in all com.es to Rs.7000/- under the other heads. Ifwe add fhis amount to fhe total loss of dependency, fhe total conipeasation coines to Rs.3,58,000/- (Rs. 3,51,000 + 7,000/-), which the claimants are entitled to receive fi?om the appeUauts. However, the Tribunal has granted a total compensation of Rs.3,19,000/- which cannot be said to be excessive in view of our above coinputetion. Therefore, fhe contention of fhe leamed couasel for the appeUant regardiag quantuin also fails. In view ofwhat has been discussed above, there is no inerit ia the appeal. The appeal is Uable to be and is hereby disinissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- DR. I.M.Quddusi Jud^e Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Rao