IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (C). N0. j ° !~j'-^ Of2007 (APPEAL VALUED AT Rs.23.60.432/-) DlVlSSO" APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988. APPELLANTS (NON-APPLICANT N0.2) RESPONDENTS (APPLICANTNO.l) (APPLICANT N0.2) (APPLICANT N0.3) :United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch-Office, Rajendra nagar Chowk, Bilaspur (CG). Versus ^A.^'I!^ :^.^1-"" ^a-"L&wv'% l^o-')? ^~^^^\^'e'' y^^"' ^{^} .^' ^ 1. Sadhna Chaturvedi Wd/0- Late Sanjay Chaturvedi, aged-41 years, :2. Shreya Chaturvedi, D/O-Late Sanjay Chatuvedi, aged-14 Years, :3. Umang Chaturvedi D/O-Late Sanjay Chaturvedi, aged-13 Years, Respondent no.2 8s 3 are Minor, through their mother (Natural Guardian)- Sadhna Chaturvedi(Res.no. 1) All are R/o-Vaishali Nagar, BUaspur, Tahsil. 8s Distt.- Bilaspur (CG) (NON-APPLICANT N0. 1) 4,(^ Shri B.K.Gupta, •^ Manager, Prakash Industries Limited, New Industrial Area, Ring Road no.2, Gogaon, Raipur (Owner of vehicle) ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAIUI AT BILASPUR M.A.C. No. 1043/2007 United India Com.pany Limited Insurance Sadhna Chaturvedi and ofhers DB:- HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AOARWAL AND HON'BLE SHRI GULAM MINHAJUDDIN. JJ PRBSENT:- Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Am.it Verma, Advocate, for fhe respondents No. 1 to 3. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal wifh Shri Saurabh Sharma, Advocate forfhe respondent No. 4. ORAL ORDER (22-6-2011) Per N.K. AKarwalijJ 1. This is iasiirer's appeal against fhe award dated 28-6- 2007 passed by fhe Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir (CGj m M.A.C.T. No. 13/2007 whereby and whereunder leamed Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 23,60,432/- along with interest. at the rate of 6% per aanum Irom the date of application till its payment also holding liable fhe appellant/InsLirance Company for its payment. 2. Facts of the case in brief are fhat on 3-3-2006, deceased Sanjay Chaturvedi was returntng from Raipur in Car bearmg registration No. CG-04/9915 being driven by driver Geeta Sahu and to save a cyclisf, fhe car coUide wifh a tree as a result of which, Sanjay Chaturvedi and the driver of the car Geeta Sahu died on spot. The clatinants being widow and clnldren of fhe deceased preferred a claun petition under Section 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claimmg Rs. 54,59,150/- as compensation for fhe death of the deceased in the motor accident. ty'..?-~'^ ^^]^ ^ :l^^' -i' .."' " ^ 3: 6. 7. 8. Leamed Tribunal on a close scrutiny of fhe evidence led, assessed income of the deceased as Rs. 22,532/- per montii. After deducting l/3rd of it towards personal expenses of fhe deceased, assessed yearly loss of dependency as Rs. 1,80,264/-. By applytng multiplier of 13, the total compensation towards loss of dependency was assessed as 23,43,432/-. Learned Trib-Lmal has further awarded Rs. 17,000/- on ofher heads and thus awarded a total siim ofRs. 23,60,432/- as compensation. Leamed Tribunal holding the policy is package policy aad fhe policy covera ttie risk of occupant of the car, also held Uable fhe appeUant/Insurance Coiapany jointly and severely along with owner of tfae vehicle for payment of coiapensation. Shri Dashrath Gupta, leamed counsel for fhe appeUant would submit, the amount awarded is shockingly on higher side. As per T.D.S. certiilcate filed by fhe claimants for the assessment year 2005-06, the gross mcome of fhe deceased was Rs. 1,66,988/- whereas basing its findin^ on an inadmissible docunient i.e. salary slip, which is not proved by fhe clatmant by adducing legal and cogent evidence and by ignortng the above T.D.S. certificate, taking into consideration monthly salar;.' as Rs. 22,532/- the Tribunal awarded the aforesaid sum which deserves to be suitably i^duced. On the other hand, Shri Amit Venna, leamed counsel for the clatmants would submit, the award passed by fhe Tribunal is just and reasq,nable. He would further submit that looking to the age of fhe deceased as 42 years at fhe time ofaccident, the multiplier applied is also on the lower side. . • Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, leamed counsel for the owner would also support fhe unpugned award. I have heard leamed counsel for tfae parties and perused tfae record. ..•aia^i,*, '''^ •:J -•' it •Sass.MSS, 'msyays. 9 9. As per T.D.S. certificate issued by Prakash Industries Limited, the gross salary of the deceased for the period 1- 4-2004 to 31-3-2005 was Rs. 1,66,988/- and income tax payable is Rs. 6,8 II/-. The claimants have also filed salary slip tn which it has been shown that gross salary of the current year of fhe deceased was Rs. 2,63,345/- but fhe same has not been proved by productng register ofthe company through its accountant nor it has been shown that tn the earlier year, for which fhe company has issued T.D.S. certified, the salary was less and it was increased in the current year. In view of above, certainly, fhe claimants have failed to prove above salary certificate by leadiag cogent and legal evidence. In view of above, in oiir considered optnion, fhe income of the deceased for assessment of compensation would be 1,66,988/- as mentioned in the T.D.S. certificate issued by the employer. 10. By taJdng into consideration gross income ofthe deceased as Rs. 1,66,988/- per annum and after deduction of Rs. 6,8 II/- i.e. the amoiint of income tax paid, the gross yearly inconie of fhe deceased would be Rs. 1,60,177/-. After deducting l/3rd of it towards personal expenses of fhe deceased, yearly loss of dependency would be worked out to Rs. 1,06,785/-. Smce fhe deceased was offhe age of about 44 years at the time of accident, fhe appropriate niultiplier would be 14 instead of 13 in view of decision of Supreme Court in fhe case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others —v-Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 1,21, wherein multiplier of 14 is prescribed when fhe deceased is between age group of 41 to 45 yeas. By applying fhe above multipBer, conipensation towards loss of,dependency is assessed as Rs. 14,94,990/-. By addmg in it Rs. 15,000/- on other heads, fhe total compensation for which fhe claiinants are entiUed would be Rs. 15,09,990/-. 11. For the reasons mentioned above, fhe appeal is allowed in part. The award impugned is modifled. The claimants are entitled to compensation ofRs. 15,09,990/- instead ofRs. 23,60,432/-. The amount ofaward shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till its paym.ent. 12. The Insurance Company is granted fhree inonths tmie from today to pay the amount of award. 13. In view of above, fhe cross-objection preferred by the claimants stands disposed of. 14. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge