. F. ^ ^tvl '^, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLESHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal (Cl No.219/2007 APPiLLANT RESPONDENT Claimant No.1 RESPONDENT Claimant No.2 RESPONDENT Claimant No.3 RESPONDENT Claimant No.4 RESPONDENT Claimant No.5 RESPONDENT Claimant No.6 RESPONDENT Defendant No.1 The Oriental tnsurance Company, through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Offtee - High Court Road, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur (CG) Versus 1. Smt Chanda Bai, widow of Late Moti Lal Gond, aged about 45 years 2. Bharat Lal, son of Shri IVtotilat Gond, aged about 21 years 3. ShyamSunder, agedabout 19 years, son of lerte Shri Motflal Gond 4. Panch Kumari, daughter of late Shri Motilal Gond aged about 15 years, 5. Dev Kumari, daughter of Late Motilal Gond, aged about 13 yaars 6. Indra Kumari, daughter of Lsrte Motilal Gond, aged about 7 years Respondents No.4 to 6 are minors, through their natural guardian - mother - Smt Chandabai, widowof Late Motilat Respondents No.1 to 6 - All resident ofvillage- Phatjhar, PS Chilfi, Tah - Lormi, Distt Bilaspur 7 Pappu Panika, aged about 43 years, son of Mohan Lal Panika, Driver, Truck No.CG 10-A/78re, resident of Belgahna PS and Tahsil Kota, Distt Bilaspur (CG) (Driver of offending vehicte) 1 RESPONDENT Defendant No.2 8 Shakuntala Devi,vrifeof Subhaschandra Agrawal, aged about 53 years, Owner of Truek No.CG 16-A/78^, resident of Dayalband, Bilaspur (CG) (Owner of the offending vehicle) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MQTQR VEHJCLES ACT71988 Present: Shri Prashant Jayaswal, Senior Advocate with Shri Shailendra Sharma, counsel forthe appellant. Shri Avinash Sahu, counsel for r^pondents No.1 to 8. None for respondents No.7 & 8. ORDER (25th August, 2009) The following order of the Court was pa^»d by Rajeev Gupta, CJ.: Learned counsel for the parties are heard on MCP No.313/2007, a petition for condonation of delay in fiting the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of l^ined coinsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appetlant / Insurance Company he® shown sufncient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) MCP No.313/2007, therefore, is allowed and the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Prashant Jayaswal, teamed Senior Advocate for the appellant is heard on admission. 5) This is insurer'sappeat against the award dated 18.10.2006, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, Distt Bilaspur (for short, 'the Tribunal') in motor accident ctaim case No.68/2005. „;'' /:'•"'-»•:, /•.^^ "s '% 'y 6) Respondents No.1 to 6, the unfortunate widow and children of deceased Moti Lal Gond claimed eompensation of Rs.18,50,000/- by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of ttie Motor Vehicle Act for his death in the motor accident on 15.06.2005, when he was dashed by the offending vehicle truck bearing registration No.CG-IO-A-7866 resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot itself. 7) The claimants pleaded that da^ased Moti Lal Gond used to earn Rs.250/- per day and Rs.7,500/- per month by selling vegetables. 8) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties held that deceased Moti Lal Gond died on acc»untof the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent drivlng of the driver of the offending vehicle tmck; as the offending vehicle truck on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Companywas liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 9) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.90/- per day and R.2,700/- per month and Rs.32,400/- per annum. By deducting 1/4th of Rs.32,400/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.24,300/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,300/- with the multiplier of 13, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,15,900/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.28,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal ':1 fc'., ^, . f^ !• B.. -^_.-'•'./(!• '>. »^'3- ^f. ,i*l'' c awarded a total sum of Rs.3,43,900/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of fitlng of e claim petition till the date of actual payment. 10) Shri Prashant Jayaswal, leamed Senior Counsel for the appellant / Insurance Company vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in deducting only 1/4 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses as against the usuat deduction of 1,^rd in that beha.'f. 11) The appellant / Insurance Company has taton following grounds in this appeal: "A. Because the award is contrary to facts, evidence and law. B. Because the permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehlcle Act, 1988 has been obtained. C. Because the leamed Claims Tribunai h^ wrongly deducted 1/4 of the amount from the annuat income instead of deducting 1/3 as Second Schedule under Section 163 - A ofthe Motor Vehicle Act, provided for the same. D. Because the award is excesswe and liable to be set aside." 12) From the above mentioned submissions of teamed Senior Counset for the appellant and the above quoted grounds of the appeal, it is apparent that the sole ground pressed into service in this appeal by the insurer is in regard to the deduction of the 1/4h of the income of the deceased towards his pereonal expenses instead ofthe usual deduction of 1/3 . 13) It is not in dispute that as many as sb< daimants were dependant on the income of the deceased Moti Lal Gond. The claimants are widow and five chitdren of deceased Moti Lal Gond. 14) The Apex Court in a recent dictum in the case of Saria Verma (Smt) and Others Vs. Dethi Transport Coqioration and Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 while considering the permissible extent of deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased obsen/ed in para 30 as under: "30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living e^enses is calculated on the basis of units incMcated in Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362, the general practice is to apply standardlzed deductions. Having considered several subsequent deci^ons of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3"i) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-Tourth (1/4^ where the number of dependent family membere is 4 to 6, and one-fiflh (1/5^h) wtiere the numter of dependent family members exceecte scc." 15) Now, reverting to the present case, as there were six dependants on the income of the deceased Mati Ld Gond, the deduction of 1/4 of the income of the dece^ed towards his personal expenses by the Tribunal is perfectly in line with the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport (supra). ^// ^c 16) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any seope for interference in the assessment of the compensation by the Tribunal. 17) The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. 18) Consequently, MCP No.31 2/2007 also stands dismjs^. Sd/- j g^. ChiefJustice , Sunil Kumar Sinha padma ftal