$' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEALS FC1 N0. ?,i^- /2011 MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,1988 "tC^ APPELLANT INSURER ^%^v \b- 'ONDENTS CLAIMANTS OWNER-cum- DRIVER Reliance General Insurance Company Limited through its legal officer, Branch Office, 4th floor, Shop No. 412- 413, Ravi Bhawan, Near Jaistambh Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) (Correct Address of the appellant company.) VERSUS 1. Prabha Devi W/o- late Rajkumar aged about 35 years, 2. Ajeet Kumar S/o- Late Rajkumar aged about 19 years, 3. Brijesh Kumar S/o- Late Rajkumar aged about 18 years, All R/o- Village- Belkona, P.S. & Tahsil- Shankargarh, District- Sarguja (C.G.) 4. Manish Kumar Sharma S/o- V.K.Sharma, R/o- Ward No. 37, Staff Quarter, P.0. - Domanhil, Chirmiri, District- Koriya ( C.G.) APPEAL VALUED AT RS. 4.41,000/- COURT FEE Rs. 15/- 2^ HIGH COURT OFCHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ. AppeHant Insurer Resoondents Claimants AppeUants Resoondents MA. Id No.512/2011 Vs Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Prabha Devi and others M.A.fdNo.223/2011 Prabhadevi and others Vs Manish Kumar Sharma and another Present: Mr. Sourabh Sharma, counsel for the appellant/ReUance General Insurance Company Ltd. in MA (c) No.512/11. Mr. Sunil Tripathi, counsel for the appettants in MA (c) No.223/11. ORDER (Oralt (27tnJune,2011) Per I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Since the respondents/claimants are represented in MA (c) No.512/11, therefore, this appeal is being taken up along wth MA (c)No.223/11. 2. From perusal of the records, it appears that there is rw permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehtoles Act granted to the insurance Company and the apptication was not moved even before the Tribunal under Secfion 170 of the Act. 3. In the matters of Sadhana Lodh Vs. Nattonal Insiawwe <^>. Ltd. and attoffier reported in (20W) 3 SCC S24, NaSonal Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mastan and anottier, 2006 (2) SCC 641, BIJoy Kumar Dugar \/s. Bulya Dhar Dutta and ottwrs (W06) 3 SCC 242, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the absence q(/ t\ f'.f**.. ^'^ ^ ^..// permission granted to the Insurance Company under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Insurance Company cannot challenge the quantum of compensation awarded bythe Tribureil in favour of the claimants. 4. Thus, in view of above, the appellant/insurance company has no right to file the appeal on the question df quantum, including that of contributory negligence. Therefore, the appeal {^AA (c) No.512/11} is dismissed as not maintainable. 5. Misc. Appeal (c) No. 223/11 has been filed by Uie claimants for enhancement of the compensation. Since liability to pay the compensation has been fastened upon the insurance company and leamed counsel for the insurance company Shri Sairabh Shamna is present, there is no need to send notices. Since LCR is already available on record, this appeal is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 6. Brief facts of the case, as per claim petition, are that on 20.6.2009 in the moming Rajkumar, aged 38 yeare, was driving Tata 1109 Truck No. CG 15A 3S53 and when he reached near Viltage : Pasta, respondent No.1 Manish Kumar, driver of the offending vehicle Bolero No. CG 16B 0715, while driving the vehtole rashly and negligentty, dashed the truck of the deceased, as a result, deceased Rajkumar sustained grievous injuries and he was teken to District Hospital, Ambikapur, where he dled next day on 21.6.2009. The deceased was ag«l38 yeare at the time of accklent and used to eam Rs. ^7,0001- per month by driving. He also used to eam Rs.12,000/- per year from agriculturat work. Since the claimants were dependentupon th&deceased, therefore, they claimed a total compensation of Rs.11,40.000/- under different heads with biterest andcostofthesuit. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the recwds as also the impugned award. ^7 8. The Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased at Rs.4,(XX)/- per month i.e. Rs.48,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses, the remainder came to Rs.32,000/-, that is the annual dependency. Age of the deceas«thas been assessed as 40 years at the time of acctelent in question. However, in the postmortem, the age has been shown as 38 years. Therrfore, according to law laid down in Sarta Vwma (Smt) Vs. De / Transport Corporatton aiul aoother, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 121. the multiplier of 15 would be appUcable between the age group of 32-40 years. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 13, whteh is lower than what has been laid d(wn in Sarta Verma's case. Thus, after applying the multiplier of 15, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,80,000/-. The Tribunal has granted Rs.25,000/- to the claimants under other heads. Thereafter, after adding this amount towards loss of dependency, the total compensation comes to Rs.5,05,000/-. Hence, the appeal ts liable to be allowed in part and the amount of compensation is liable to be enhanced accordingly. 9. Therefore, we allow this appeal {MA (c) No.223/11} in part and modifythe Impugned awardas under: (i) that the ctaimants woufcl be entitled to get Rs.5,05,axy- as total compensation; that the claimants shatl also be entitled to get simple interest @ 9% per annum, as awarded by the Trlbunal from the date of rilii^i ofthe claim petition i.e. 5.12.2009 till actual payment; fhat claimant No.2 Ajit Kumar and claimant No.3 Brijesh Kumar, both sons :of the deceased, witl get Rs.2 lakhs each, which shall be kept in fD<ed deposit in their names for a periwl offtve years in a nationalized bank. Whereas in the name of claimant No.l/wklow namely Prabhadevi, Rs. 1 lakh shall be kept in fixed deposlt in a nationidized bank for a period of five years. The remaining amount shall be paid in cash to all the three claimants in equal ratio. ^~ JM ^ 10. In the result, MA (c) No.512/11 is dismissed as not maintainable and MA (c) No.223/11 is allowed in part, modifying the impugned award, to the above extent. 11. No order as to costs. 12. Certified copy as per rules. " ~ Khan/- Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge