IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTKSARH AT BILASPUR IV&BC. Appeal No. •^o/I !;l;il'!toi ^ .^PPELLANT Etefendant No.3 •Versus NtriiatiaS Itisufi2TK:e Conyatiy Lfai, Tlirough Brandi Qfficei', Bflaspiu", Biiaspin-(CG.). ^'S&v Su.' K^FONDENT : .0 /'' 1. Indira Bai Fimde, 40 yeare, ^—— Wd/o Late Qianshvain Rnide, RqendraKumar, 16yeare, S/o Late GhanshyainFiinde, BESPONDENT J3aunai-it ^ ^ A R^ONDENT : d,' ^^rfavfantNo.l Unrendra Kiunar, 13 yeats, S/o Late GhanshyatnFtinde, RespondentB No. 2 arid3 m-e rnuior, Through Respoiidetit No.l- nufliet- AU R/o Street No. 20, Blwk No.l, Quarter No. H - Sector-11, Zane-1, B}iilai, Ustrict- DLB^(C.G.). BamldriIawanSahi.i, 21 yeais, R/o Ktl&halin-, Itl frant of ttie liouse of PanchamThekedar, Piirani Basti, Raipur(CG.) - IMver- iPONDENT Etefendant No. 2 7/" p^ Naii»hKtiniar Advni, S/o Motumal Advani, R/o 'Vlvekanand Ashram, Sarswati Nagar, Baipur (CG.). - C^wnjer- '-•^ s<^ .'9^<\" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT RESPONDENTS M.A. No. 202 of 2003 National Insurance Company Ltd. Versys Indira Bai Funde & Others ;1:.'-:K^^:^-3a^ APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal, JJ. Present : Shri BN Nande, Advocate for the appetlant. Shri Amrito Das, Advocate for respondent No.1to 3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 01.12.2010) Per : I.M. Quddusi, J. 1. This is insurer's appeal against the award dated 12.11.02, passed by the IVth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 105/02, whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs. 3,21,610/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants alongwith the interest @ 6 percent per annum if award is satisfied within a period of two months, and in default penal interest @ 12 percent per annum against the appellant/insurance company. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 10.09.2000 Mahendra Kumar Funde (since deceased) while going towards Durg from PQwer House, Bhilai- by his bicycle, was dashed by the driver of Maruti Van bearing registration No. MP-23-LA-3349 as a resuit of which he succumbed to the injurfes sustained in the said accident. |l-!!'P«8 3. The claimants preferred an application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,96,000/- for the death of deceased in the said accident. 4. As against Rs. 12,96,000/- claimed by the claimants, the Tribunal, awarded total sum of 3,21,6107- in favour of the claimants and as against the insurance company. 5. We have heard the counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the award impugned and LCR. 6. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3000/- per month but reduced Rs. 4(X)/- per month treating four day's holidays and assessed Rs. 2600/- as monthly income, deducted 1/3 of it towards personal expenses of the deceased; applied multiplier of 15, assessed the amount of compensation towards loss of dependency at Rs. 3,12,120/- and further awarded Rs. 2,000/-for funeral expense, Rs. 4990/- for medical expenses and Rs. 2500/- for loss of estate, and thus awarded total sum of Rs. 3,21,610/- in favour ofthe claimants. 7. In view the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Sarfa Venna (Smt) and others vs. Delhl Transport Corporation and Afifrther, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, where, in the family there is widow mother and number of younger non earning sister's and brother's is present, the deduction towards personat expenses of the deceased may be restrained to 1/3 . In the present case, the deceased was 9. young boy aged about 20 years, his widow mother aged about 40 years and two minor brothere certainly remain without income, therefore, the Tribunat has rightly deducted 1/3r of the income as personal expenses. We have seen the age of the mother as 40 yeare, and according to Sarla Verma's case, multiplier of 15 is applicable between the age 36-40 years. However, we feel that towards other heads the compensatlon is inadequate but since there is no appeal on the side of claimants, we cannot enhance the amount on the appeal fited by the insurance company. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, we are not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. However, we have observed that penal interest has been imposed by the Tribunal which is not proper, and therefore, to this extent, we are inclined to interfere that the Tribunal was not right in imposing the penal interest @ 12 percent. Accordingly, that part of the award is set aside and the amount of award is payabte with flat rate of interest i.e 6 percent per annum from the date of application till the payment of award is made. Rest of the award shal! remain intact. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part to the above extent. No order asto costs. / ^ Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Sahu