<<r^/' m TKB »ia»coimTor cHKAn^saARa AT BIXA MIS<R.APpEA^No.;- / ^5 /2006. O^* ACTSIA^ITSs. ^laimantsl /• ^ 3. -7 / Saat.Psycttlaaitt CNuadniluir, Age-25Yrs, W/0 Late Pramod Chandrakar, &y I^ofession House-wife, Irim <auuadtaitok»,(Minor 1 ^e-02 Yrs. S/0 Ute Pramod Chandmkar, Repr^eittted fay her Mother Appelteint no.l, Smt. (^imiffia Chandratair. KII* y«t»tatCSswsiAwSGW^ (Ninor) Age-5 montfa D/0 Late Prsimod Chandt'al^r, Represented ly her Mother Appeliant tio,ly SiEnt Pummia Ctiandjnalcar. XAlthiin CIi»»d»iilEwr,j^ge- 65 Yrs, S/0 Late RaiBahin Chaiyimtear, (Died on 02.01.2006 No L.R.'s preseat] Att the atacwe s^peSants No. 1 to 3, are: R/0 Viljage-Beyiy^Jbar, P.S./Tah.&i Di^tr-Maha^uBUfidl, (C.O.) :V8RSiy8s X. iai»ttai»rM>bai?»Ag^>26Yrs, S/0 Pmlmsh Chaad P&tro, R/0: -RIy. Colony-Kasturi Nagar» P.S. Bi Distt. Saagada, {Omsa} PMverofTruckNo.A.P. 12/T-2^9| ^2. K/8,0m SlMuitl |toadw«ys» *nm»iig^P.K. Chrn^- Ptioprietor, Raigjftda, P.S, 8s Distt Ra^ada, lOnisaj {Own<erQfTm<;kNo.A.P.12/T-2899| ^* The ITattoaat In«»t»a<»<^s. ttd, G.E. Road, N^ur Old-Bus Staad, Raipur, Distt Raipur (C.O.J (las. Com. ofTruclc No. A.P. 13/T-2899] -: MEMO OF MISC.APPEAL UNDER SECTION i73 OJP TOE MOTOR VEmajEJmLi: R»!^0«Oiai^S(- |Jlott-«a|»licittttai) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR D.B.: Hon'ble Shri I.M. Quddusi, fis Hon?ble Sbri Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. M.A.No. 160 of 2006 APPELLANT National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus RESPpNDENTS Smt. Pumima Chaadrakar and ofhers. M.A.No.975of2006 APPELLANTS Sint. Purauna Chaadrakar and ofhers. Versus RESPONDENTS Murli Manohar aad ofhers. M.A.(ClNo. 396 pf 2006 APPBLLANT National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus RBSPONDBNTS Smt. Indraai Sahu aad others. M.A. (Cl_No. 270 of 2006 APPBLLANTS Smt. Indrani Saliu aad ofhers. Versus RBSPONDBNTS MurU Maaohar Patro and ofhers. M.A. (Ct No. 394 of 2006 APPELLANT National Insuraace Co. Ltd. Versus RESPONDBNTS Smt. Leela Bai @ UrmUa Bai aad ofhers. M.A. (Cl No.406 of 2006 APPBLLANT National Insuraace Co. Ltd. Versus RESPONDBNT^ Mahavir Das aad others. l^? ^ff A ^^^s^^ ^ff^^ 1 t;—i^ 1 '^'s^ '^ '%., '€^^'y 'y 0 Appearaace: Mr, Dashrafh Gupta, counsel for fhe appellant ia M.A.NO. 160/2006, M.A(C). No. 396/2006, M.A(C)r 406/2006 & M.A(C). 394/20Q6 and respondent no.3 ia MA.No.975/2006 ie., National Insuraace Comipaay Ltd. Mr. J.A. Lohaai, counsel for fhe appeUaats ia M.A.No,975/2006 and respondexits/claiinaats ia M.A. 160/2006. Mr. Shivendu Paadya, counsel for fhe appellaats/claiaiants in M.A.(C). No.270/2006 aad rcspondents l(a) (b) & (c) iu M.A.(C).No.396/2006 and respondents 1 (a) & (b) in M.A(C). No.406/2006. Per I.M. QUDDUSI. J, ORAL ORDBR (21.04.2011) 1. M.A.No. 160/2006 has been filed by fhe Insuraace Coinpaay agamst titie impugned award dated 25.10.2005 passed by fhe II Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, ia claun Case No. 117/2004 whereby fhe Uability has been iaiposed upon the Insuraace Conipany whereas M.A,No.975/2006 has been filed by fhe claiaiaiits agaiast the sanie award for enhaaceinent of fhe award, 2. M.A(C). No. 396/2006 has been ffled by the Insuraace Coinpany agam.st the tmpugned award dated 31.03.2006 passed by the IX AddL Motor Accident Clauns Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.), m claim Case No. 116/2005 agaiast fhe UabiUty imposed upon it whereas M.A(C). No.270/2006 has been filed by fhe claimants agamst fhe same award for enhaaceinent of fhe award. 3. M.A(C). No. 406/2006 has been ffled by fhe Insuraace Corapaay agaiast fhe irapugned award dated 31.03.2006 passed by fhe IX Addl. Motor Accident Clamis Tribunal, ;';!^P€~'^ ^sy -5- Raipur (C.G.), ia claim Case No.20/2004 challengmg the liability imposed upon it. Smularly, M.A(C). No. 394/2006 has been filed by fhe Insurance Coinpany agaiast the impugned award dated 28.02.2006 passed by fhe IX Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.), ia clami Case No.52/2005. 4. Sio.ee two appeal i.e., M.A.No.975/2006 adsiag out ofClaioi Case No. 117/2004 ffled before 2nd Addl. MACT, Mahasamund aad M.A(C).270/2006 arismg out of Claim Case No. 116/2005 ffled beforc IX Addl. MACT, Raipur for enhaaceinent have been fUed by the claimaats, we are dealing wifh fhose appeals along-wifh fhe appeals filed by fhe Insiirance Coiapany, 5. Brief facts of the case ia aU fhe cases are coininon as aU appeals are arisiag out of fhe same accident, which are as under: On 04.07.2004 at about 11.30 p.m. deceased Pramod Chaadrakar, Indra Kumar, Nemichaad & Om Prakash were staadiag along wifh their Motorcycle aad were talkiag wifh each ofher on the roadside ofNational Highway No. 217 near viUage Mama-Bhaaja Bagbahara Distorict - Mahasamund. At fhat time, a Tmck bearing registration No. M.P.12-T/2899 which was driven by non-applicant No. 1 MurU Manohar ia a rash aad negUgent inanner suddenly dashed fhera, as a result ofwhich, all fhe above foiir persons died on fhe spot. 6. Shn Dashrath Gupta, learaed coiinsel for fhe appeUaat Insuraace Coiapaay contends that fhere was contdbutoiy negUgence on the part of driver of the inotorcycle and fhe quaatum fixed by the Tribunal is excessive. ^s, i -^- 7. Before considering fhe question of quaatuin, it is necessaiy to consider fhe contention raised by fhe learaed counsel for fhe msiiraace Company to fhe effect fhat there was contdbutory negl^ence on fhe part of driver of fhe two- wheeler but a perusal oftibie record shows fhat fhe offendiag Truck dashed the motorcycle fi"om behiad and it is evident fhat fhat aU fhe 4 persons (deceased) who were staiidiag alongwifh fhe Motorcycle were tatkiiig on fhe road side aad it cannot be said fhat fhe motorcycle was m moviag condition aad ia such situation fhere was probability ofdeafh ofaU fhe four persons when fhe Truck suddenly dashed aad cnished all of thexn. Hence fhis contention is not sustamable. 8. Now we com.e to fhe question of quaatuin involved ia dtfferent awards. M.A.N0.97S/2006 & M.A. Nol60/2006 In Clami Case No. 117/2004 giviag rise to fhese appeals, the inonthly incoine of the deceased has been assessed by fhe TribunaA as Rs.2000/- per inonfh After deducting l/3rd towards personal aad Uviag expenses, fhe reraamder has been worked out ia round figures as Rs,1400/" and fhe loss of annual dependency as Rs.16,800/-. The age of fhe deceased has been treated by fhe Tribiinal as 25 years aad fherefore, accordiag to fhe multipHer scale given io. Scsrla Verina (Svnt.) -vs- Delhi Transpert Corparatian and em.ather (Para 40) reported m (2009) SCC 121, multiplier 18 should have been made appUcable. However, fhe Tribunal has appUed multipUer 17 which seenis to be on lower side. Therefore, on applyiag ^, -./. i^. ^) h^s ^'"llllllll^ multipUer 18, fhe total loss of dependency was worked out as Rs.3,02,400/-. The Tribunal has assessed the total loss of dependency as Rs.2,85,600 which is not adequate. Besides fhis, fhe Tribunal has granted Rs.9500/- ia aU under ofher heads, but fhat too is not adequate. Therefore, over ofher heads, fhe claimaats would be entiUed to get Rs.5000/- for loss ofconsortium ia respect of fhe widow aad Rs. 5000/- each for loss of love aad affection ia respect of ofher 3 clainiaats (Total Rs. 15,000); Rs. 5000/- for loss ofestate aad Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses/ which ia aU conies to Rs.30,000/- under fhe ofher heads. After adding fhis amoiint to fhe total loss ofdependency fhat is Rs.3,02,400/- the total conipensation com.es to Rs.3,32,400/- which the claiaiaats are entitied to receive froni fhe appeUaat. Therefore, fhe ainount awarded by ftie Tribunal is liable to be aad is hereby enhanced to Rs.3,32,400/-. The Tribunal has graated 6% iaterest per aanuin. Therefore, fhe said aniount shall also carry iaterest @ 6% per anniimL froni fhe date of filing of fhe clauii petition tUl fhe paynient isinade. Hence, M.A.No. 160/2006 is disniissed aad M.A. No,975/2006 is allowed in part. The itnpugned award dated 25th October, 2005 is inodi&ed to fhe above extent. M.A.(Cl.No.396/2006 & M.A (01.270/2006 In CIabn Case No. 116/2005 giviag rise to fhese appeals, fhe Tribunal has taken fhe iaconie of the deceased as Rs.3600/- per monfh. After deducting l/3rd towards personal expenses, fhe remaiader has been assessed as Rs.2400/- and the annual loss of dependency as 'T.^—- -^!5?\\ If ^' '"^ ^ ff ^: ^ r—y % ^-€. ^;". _-^-':- '--^M^,^-' ^KNN^ -6- Rs.28,800/- (2400 x 12). Since the age ofdeceased was 38 years, accordiag to fhe multipUer scale given ia Sarla Verma's case (supra), inultipUer 15 would be appUcable. However, fhe Tribunal has appUed inultipUer 13 which is on lower side. Therefore, on applyiag raultipUer 15, fhe total3 loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,32,000/- (28,800 x 15). Besides fhis, the claiaiaiits are entlfled to Rs.5000/- towards loss of consorduin ia respect ofwidow, Rs.5000/- each for loss of love and affection ia respect of two chUdren (total Rs.10,000/-); Rs.5000/- forloss ofestate aad Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses which ia aU comes to Rs.25,000/- under the ofher heads. After addmg fhis amount to fhe total loss of dependency fhat is Rs. 4,32,000/-, fhe total coiapensatlon comes to Rs.4,57,000/-. However, fhe Tribunal has awarded Rs,3,91,900/~ which is iaadequate aad fhe same Uable to be aiid is hereby enhanced to Rs,4,57,000/-. The iaterest @ 9% per annuia has been graated but ia Claim Petition No. 117/2004, fhe iaterest @ 6% per aiinum has been graated by a different Tribunal. Therefore, ia our opiaion, there should a uniform rate of iaterest. Hence, the clainiants are entitled to 6% sioiple iaterest per aniium tihrough out from fhe date offUmg offhe claim petition tUl fhe payment is inade. The appeals arisiag out of Clami Case No. 116/2005 are allowed ia part aad impugned award dated 31,03.2006 is niodi&ed to fhe above extent. M.A.C. 394/2006 fi6 M.A.C. 406/2006 Siace we have enhaaced fhe aiaount of coinpensation ui other app<eals, we are not iaclmed to reduce fhe ainounts ,:^^^. ^^'.M' '•<. ^-.-' '^';. '^•'•:1'" Rao/ Kamde 9. -7- awarded ia Claim Cases No.52/2005 and 20/2004 giviag rise to these appeals. However, fhe iaterest@ 9% per aanum graated by the Tribunal is reduced to 6% per aoiium. The inipugned awards staad niodified. In fhe result, M.A.No. 160/2006 is disndssed aiid M.A.975/2006, M.A(C).396/2006, M.A.(C). No.270/2006 M.A(C).394/2006 & M.A(C).406/2006 are aUowed in part. No order as to costs Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge