l,)- M <D IN THE HON'BLB B1GH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C) No. .X' ^ OF 2011 (APPEALVALUEDATRs. 15.50.000 /-} APPEAL UNDER SECHON 173 OF THE MOTQR VEmCLES ACT. 1988 AppeUant (Non-Applicant No.3) ^^:^.^ .1 ..,..-"^•6 1. .w^ \\ ^SVg^^^ Q^r^^ Uoited India Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, ls» Floor Krishna Complex kutchery Chowk Raipur, Distt.- Raipiir (C.G.) (Matador No.-CG-05B-8454 of insurer) Versus Respondents (Applicant No. 1) (Applicant No.2) (Applicont No.3) (Applicant No.4) (Applicant No.5) (NON-AppUcant No.l) 1. Smt.Sangeeta Bansal W/0 - Late-Ptaveen Bansal, aged-25 years. 2. Ku. Khushi Bansal, D/0 - Late-Praveen Bansal, agpd -03 years. 3. Nitish Bansal, S/0- Late- Praveen Bansal, aged -1,1/2 years. Respondent no.2 & 3 are minor, through their mother Smt. Sangeeta Bansal (respondent no.l) 4. Babu Rain Bansal, S/0- Late- Khajan Singh Bansal, aged-60 years. 5. Smt Batan Bansal, W/O' Babu Ram Bansal, aged-55 years. AU are R/0-Vm-Chandnidih, P.S.- Amanaka, Distt-Raipur 6. Sukalu Ram, S/0- Ram Lal Sahu, aged-35 years, R/0- Sanjay Nagar Ward NO.-l Kimid, Tah. & Distt. - Dhamtari (C.G.) ( driver of (NON-Applicant No.2) Matador No.-CG-05B-8454). Gopal Dhmv, S/O-Late- Shriram Dhruv> R/0- Sarojani Chowk, Kurud, Tah. & P.S.-Kumd, Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.) (Owner of Matador No.-CG-05B-8454). HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QU&DUSI & HON'BLE MR.6ULAM MINHAJUDDIN. JJ Appellant Resoondents M.A. [Cl No.714/2011 United India Insurance Company.Ltd. Vs Smt Sangeeta Bansal & others Present:- Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. 5. Pandya, Advocate for the respondent No.l to 5. Mr. 4- Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent N0,6 <& 7. ORt)ER(OraD . (24th August, 2011) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. The appellant-Insurance Company has fil^d this miscellaneous appeal a9ainst the award dated 05.03.2011 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Clajms Tribunal') in Claim Case No.47/2010 so far as it relates to fastening of liability on the appellant herein as well as quantum. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the claimants, who are widow. children and parents of the deceased, have filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.31,50,000/- for the death of deceased Praveen Kumar Bansal in the motor accident which took place on 06.11.2009 when the motor cycle of the deceased was dashed by the offending vehicle i.e. Matador, bearing registration number C605-B- 9604 on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of said vehicle. Theclaimants have claimed compensation on the ground 1+iat the deceased was the sole earning member in the family and they were dependent on his eamings. 4. The Claims Tribunal vide impugned award allowed the ctaim application of the claimants and awarded an amountof Rs.15.50,000/- as compensation % '^1 ^ M 'y:. v '^ ^f ^:^^^-.^ ^\ ''^.. v]p^^ and saddled the appellant herein with the liabitity to pay the said amount to the claimant. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. We have perused the case diary of the criminal case summoned vide order dated 07.07.2011. 6, Perusal of the record shows that initially when the accident had taken place nobody from the side of the deceased was present and the police after getting the body identified informed the father of the deceased about the accident which was recorded to be taken place by the offending vehicle. However, during investigation the police found one eyewitness who had seen the accident with the offending vehicle. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that after about five months from the date of accident, registration number of the offending vehicle could be traced, which is not believable. However, from perusal of the case diary, we are satisfied that the accident had infact taken place with the matador in question. Further, in the written statement atso the owner of the offending vehicle has not denied the fact of accident and involvement of his vehicle in that accident. He has only alleged that the accident had taken place due to negligence of the driver of the motorcycle i,e. the deceased, but this defence of the owner is ruled out in light of the statement of the said eyewitness. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Claims Tribunal has not committed any illegality in fastening llability on the appellant herein. 8. Now coming to the question of quantum- We have perused the income tax return of the deceased for the assessment year 2009-10 i.e. before the date of accident, and found that gross income of the deceased has been mentioned as Rs.1.27,500/- and details of income have been given as under:- • Income of Rs.21,000/- from 1+ie house property • Net income from truck plying business under Section 44AE is Ks.52,500/- ^-^^ • Income from the business of hardware ^xnitary items and supply of building material Rs.54,000/- The Claims Tribunal, relying on the income tax retum of the deceased, has assed the annual income of the deceased as Rs.1,27,500/-. But, we feel that the income from the house property would not be reduced due to death of the deceased and dependents of the deceased will get this income regularly. With regard to the income from the business of truck plying is concerned, it can be presumed that 50% business would be lowered down due to death of the deceased. But, we feel that there wouid be'no income from the business of hardware and supply of building materials as it is averred that the deceased-was only looking after that business. Thus, if we deduct income from the house property and 50% income from the business of truck plying from the total <xnnual income of the deceased, as assessed by the Glaims Tribundl, the total annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.80,250/- (127500-21000-26250). Thereafter, if we deduct 1/3 from the oainual income towards personal expenditure of the deceased <xnd apply multiplier of 17 to it, as the deceased was 30 years of age and according to Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport- Corporation & another report-ed in (2009) 6 SCC 121 for the age group of 30 to 35 years multiplier of 17 is opplicable, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.9,09,500/- (80250- 26750x17), Besides this, the claimants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate, claimoOTt-widow is entitled to get Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium and they are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus. in all, 1lie ctaimants are entitled to get Ks.9.34,500/- as compensation, whereas the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.15.,50,000/- which is excessive and therefore the same is liable to be reduced to the above extent. 9. In the result, the appeal \s allowed in part' and the impugned award is modify to the oct'ent that now the claimants shall be entitled for Rs.9,34,500/- as compensation in place of Rs.l5,^),CK)0/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. They shall also be entitled for Simple Interest @ 6% p^a. on the awarded amount from the date of filing of claim applicotion till actual payment is made, Out of the total amount of compensation/a sum of fts.7,(X),OOOA shall be deposited in a fixed deposit scheme of a nationalized bank in the joint names of the widow and children of the deceased under the guardianship of widow of the deceased for a period of ten years. Parents of the deceased shall be pdd fts.1,00,000/-. ftest of the amount shall be paid to the Claimant-Smt. Sangeeta Bansal i.e. widow of the deceased, 10-Case diary and records of the Ctaims Tribunal shall be sent back without any delay. 11. Certified copy as per rules. Roshan/- Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge