•^,TSj-v^/w^^-JSA^'^V^ij\r-J\/J^;^ INTHEHIGHCOURTOFeHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR msc.AppE^L[6]N6. %^^ /2oii^ Oivision SsncS ~<.^^—-—-'-;"- •• < ••. MISC.APPEALUNDERSECTION 173 OF'jTHBMOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 ^PELLANT ^fijSURER RB^ONDENTS .AlMANTS / ,\^^,r^ ^y '^<'' PRreBR ^The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through his Divisiorial ^Manager, the New Ihdia Assurance Co. Ltd. II Floor Rama Trade Cehtre, Opposite Rajeey Plaza, Bus Stand RGtad,Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS .Rajkumar Dhruv,, aged about^ 45 years, S/o Late BKarosi Dhruv,, 'Smt. Krishna Bai Dhruy, aged about 42 years, W/o Rajkumar Dhryv, £u. Geeta Dhryv, aged^ about 20 yearSy^D/0 Rajkumar DKruv, Uday Pratap"Dhruv, aged about 26 years S/o Rajkumar Dhruv, All R/o Kirwai, P.S, - Rajim, Tahsil— Rajim, District Raipur (C.£r.) Rakesh Dhritlahre, aged about 25 years, S/p Nikshila.1- Dhntlahre, R/o; Sanjay <Nagar,; .Satriamipara, Raipur^ f.S. - Tikar&pai-a, Raipur (G.&1;':^;1-1^'::^.^"-^:^ Moharffiniad Wakil;'1KBan S/o Shri /• .^ AbduriKlifan;,'R/;o Sanjay ^Nagar,: •^. : • • neaF-^Maszidi ^P.S.;'i -f TLkarapal-S., Raipur (C.G.)'. ^ ••<^i;.,:: , l '::',::- APPEALVALUEDAT^RS. 8.38.000/ •.;ll".^'^'.CQURT:FE®!Rs.:' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BIL^SPUR DB: HON'BLB I.M. QUDDUSI & HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ, M.A(Ci. No.84of201A APPEARANCE: Mr. Saurabh SIianna, couasel for the appellant. Mr. R^havendra F'radhan and Ms. Shasi Bareth couasel for fhe respondents. ORDER (ORAL1 (18.04.2011) PCTj.M.^UDDirei, J, Heard. 2. This appeal has been filed agamst ffae impugaed award dated 26.10.2010 passed by the CIiief Motor Accident CIauns Tnbuiial, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G) in Claim Case No.81/2009 so far as it relates to fhe quantiun part otdy. 3. Brieffacts ofthe case as per fhe version ofthe claimaats are that on 02.06.2009 deceased Lflendra @ Chhotu was coming to Raipur on TVS Motorcycle along-with tus fiiend Nagendra. Tbe said inotorcycle was being driven by N^endra whereas Lilendra was sitting as a piUion rider. On the way at about 3.00 p.iu., near Pachpediiiaka, one Track bearing Regn. No. C.G. 04-ZC/1443, which was beiag driven by uon-appUcant ao.l Rakesh Dhriflahare in a rash and negligent inarmer, dashed the motorcycle as a result ofwhich both Lilendra aud N^endra feU down along-with their inotorcycle aad Lilendra succuinbed to grievous iajiiries sustaiaed by him in fhe said accident. At fhe tune of accident, the deceased'was aged about 24 years. He was working ia Chaudhaiy ageacy, APPELLANT Fhe New India Assuraace Co. Ltd Vs. RESPONDBNTS Raj Kuinar Dhruv and others MISC. APPEALS U/S 173 OP THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Nawapara (Rajim) and was earuing Rs.6,000/- per month by tailoring. The claunants being dependents/legal representatives of fhe deceased, have inade claim for award of fhe compensation to the tune of Rs. 24,40,000/- on vanous heads. 4. The learaed Clauns Tnbunal held that.the deceascd died due to rash aad negUgeut driving of respondent No.5 who was dnviag the offendiug vehicle; respondent no.5 was holding vaUd aud effective driving licence and the Insurance Coiupaay has failed to prove breach of conditions of the iasuraace policy. It has awarded a total conipensation of Rs.8,38,000/- wtuch the claimaate are entifled to receive from the appeUant. S. Learaed coimsel for the appeBant submits fhat the award of fhe Tnbunal is on higher side. 6. We have heard leamed coiuisel for fhe parties and have also gone fhrough fhe records ofthe Tribunal. 7. The deceased was aged about 24 years and was a bachelor. The leamed Clauns Tribzinal on the basis of ftte Salary Certificate, Ex.P.2, has taken the monfhly incoiae of fhe deceased as Rs.6000/- per raonth and Rs.72,000/- per anauiu which fhe leamed couusel for fhe appellan.t is not disputing. The Tnbunal has deducted l/3ri towards personal and liviag expeases of fhe deceased which is not proper. It is weU settled law that if fhe deceased was bachelor, 50% (one halfl of fhe iacome is to be deducted. Therefore, after deductiiig one-half towards personal and Uving expenses, the loss of-aunual dependency would cosas to Rs.36,000/-. The Tribunal has adopted multipUer 17 which seeias to be ou higher side. Since the parents being claunants, ffae age of fhe parents is to be cousidered. The ages of the parents were 45 aad 42 years, therefore, fheir average age would come to 42 Va years and they faU wifhin fhe age group of41 to 45 years. According to fhe iiniltipUer scale given in Scrte Verma (Snd~) -vs- Delhi Trvmsport Cofporcrtion and tuwther (Para 40) reported m (2009) SCC 121, luultiplier 14 would have been inade appUcable for fhe / yff^SSS^^. ,yy ^ '""c!t^ ,,/>-^ T 'Ss z&t S y / 8. age group of 41-45 years. Hence, fhe Tnbiuaal was uot correct ia applying inultiplier 17. On applying iniiltipUer 14, fhe total loss of dependency woiild coine to Rs.5,04,000/- (Rs.36000 x 14). Besides fhis, Claunants 1 & 2 being parents are entiUed to get Rs.10,000/- each for loss oflove and affection aad Claimaats 3 & 4 beiug sister aud brofher are also entifled to get Rs.5000/- each that is total Rs.30,000/- under this head; Rs.10,000/- for loss ofestate aad Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses which ia all coines to Rs.45,000/- under the other heads. Ifwe add fhis amount to the total loss ofdependency tbat is Rs.5,04,000/-, fhe total coiupensation would coiue to Rs.5,49,000/-. However the Tribunal, after deducting I/3rd towards personal expenses aud applyiag inultiplier 17, has worked out fhe total compensation as Rs.8,38,000/- which ia our opinion is excessive. Therefore, fhe award of the Tribunal is niodified to the extent of Rs.5,49,000/- which the claimants are entiUed to receive fi-orn fhe appeUant. The said amoiuit shaU also cany simple iaterest @ 6% pcr anniim fiiom the date of fiUng ofthe claini petition tffl fhe payment is niade. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed ia part. The unpugned award dated 26.10.2010 is modified ia the above tenas. The counsel fee fixed at Rs.700/- by the Tribunal would remam ia tact. Out of tbe totat amount of compensation aad the iaterest accrued thereon, Rs.3 lakhs shaU be deposited in a fixed deposit with a Nationalized Baak in the name of Claimaut no.3 Ku. Geeta Dhruv for a-period of5 years aad Rs. 2,00,000/- shaU be depoSited ia a fixed deposit ia the joiat naiae of Claimants 1 & 2 for a period of 5 years. Clainiant No.4 being the elder brofher woiild not be entitled to get aay coiupensation except Rs.5000/- for loss of love aad affection. Rest of the amoi.mt shaU be paid to the parents ia cash. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- | —^^gdf- I.M.Quddusi 1 ' ^^tlOiB131"' ¥( 3ud8e Judge piasi Rao