('• IN THE HIGH COURT &--•"?" __ __ JDICATUREATBILA8RUR: 1 CHHATT15GARH 1; MISC, APPEAL N0.3^& QF 2006 APPEALUNDERSECTIJONl730FlVIOTORVEHieLE8ART.18flS ADpealvaluedatRsi''^,9l,9ao/-{RuDeesThreeUat(h<lNlnietvOn8 Thousand Nine Hundred onlv J APPELLANT NQN-APPLICANT N0. 3 y ' ^SSPQNDENTNO. 1 ^PLICANTS (a) (e) ,RESPONDENTNO. 2 4-APPL1CANT N0.1 ^ ReSPONDENTNO. 3 NON-APPLICANT N0.2 ^National Insurance Co. Ltd. G.,E. Road, Near Old Bus Stand, Raipurthrough itsAotipg Divlsional Manager, Bilaspur Offioe, TgMa Complex, VyaparVlhar Road, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Versus Smt. Indrani Sahu, Wd/olndra Kumar Sahu, agedabbut 34 years Dheeraj Kumar Sahu, aged about 14 years, S/o Indra KumarSahu I • • • Ku. Poonam Sahu.aged about 11 years, D/o IndraKumatSahu (MinorAppellant NQ. 2 & 3 on behalfof amicus CUrie his mother Smt. Indra aahu All R/o of ShishakNagar, Abhanpur, Dlatt Raipur(CG) li Manohar Patrok aged about 26 years, 8/0 Prakashohand Patro,-R/o Rallway Colony, KastureiNagar, Thana & District - Raigarh (Orlssa) (DRIVER) ^.-M/s Om ShantiRoadwayB Pvt. Ltd. Through P.K. Charipal, Proprietor (Raigarh) Distrief- Raigarh (Oriasa); (OWNER) HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTI8GARH, BILASPUR D.B. : Hon'ble Shrl I.M. Quddusl, & Hpn'MeShrl Prashant Kiunar Mishra, JJ. M.A.No. 160 of 2006 APPELLANT National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus RE8PONDENTS Smt. F'umima Cbandrakar aad otliers. M.A. No.975 of 2006 APPELLANT8 Suit. Pumioaa Chaadrakar and others. Versus RESPONDENT8 Murli Manobar aad otfaers. M.A. (Cl No. 396 of 2006 National Insuraace Co. Ltd. \: APPELLANT 11 VCTBUS RE8PONDENTS Smt. Indiam Sahu and others. M.A. (Cl No. 270 of 2006 APPELLANT8 Smt. Indrani Sahu and ofbers. Versus RESPONDENT8 Murii Maaohar Patro aad others. MA. (Cl No. 394 of 2006 APPBLLANT National Insuraace Co. Ltd. Versus RE8PONDBNT8 Smt Leela Bai @ Urmila Bai aad ofhers. M.A. (CINo.406 of 2006 APPBLLANT National Insuraace Co. Ltd. Versus RESPONDENT8 Mahavir Das aud others. Q Appearaace: Mr. Dashiath Gupta, counsel for the appeUaat ia M.A.No. 160/2006, M.A(Q. No. 396/2006, M.A(Q. 406/2006 & M.A(Q. 394/2006 and respondent no.3 ia M.A.No.975/2006 ie,, National Insurance Coiapany Ltd. Mr. J.A. Lohani, counsel for tfae appeUants in M.A.No.975/2006 and respondeats/claimaats ia M.A. 160/2006. Mr. Shivendu Pandya, counsel for thc appeUants/claimaats in M.A.(C). No.270/2006 and rcspondcnts l(a) (b) & (c) in M.A.(q.No.396/2CX)6 and respondents 1 (a) &(b) in M.A(C). No.406/2006. Per I.M. OUDDUSI. J. OR&L ORDER (21.04.2011) 1. M.A.No. 160/2006 has been filed by the Insurance Coinpany agaiast flie impugned award dated 25.10.2005 passed by fhe II Addl. Motor Accident Clau&s Tribunal, Mahasamund, m claim Case No. 117/2004 whereby fhe liabflily has been imposed upon the Insurance Coinpaay whereas M.A.No.975/2006 has been filed by the claimants against the same award for enhanceinent of the awaid. 2. M.A(C). No. 396/2006 has been ffled by fhe Insurance Coinpany against fhe iinpugaed award dated 31.03.2006^' passed by the IX AddL Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.), in claim Case No. 116/2005 agaiast fhe - liability imposed upon it wbereas M.A(C). No.270/2006 bas been ffled by fhe claiinants against the saine award for enliaacement offhe award. 3. M.A(C). No. 406/2006 has been filed by the Insurance Compauy against fhe impugned award dated 31.03.2006 passed by the IX Addl. Motor Accklent Claims Tribunal, y -s- ^ Raipur (C.G.), ia claim Case No.20/2004 challenging the liability imposed upou it. Smularly, M.A(C). No. 394/2006 Iias been filed by tb.e Insurance Conipajiy agaiast fhe unpugued award dated 28.02.2006 passed by fhe IX Addl. Motor Accident Claiins Tribuaal, Raipur (C.G.), iu claun Case No.52/2005. 4. Since two appeal i.e., M.A.No.975/2006 arising out ofCIaim Case No. 117/2004 filed before 2nd Addl. MACT, Mahasamund aad M.A(C).270/2006 arisiiig out of Claini Case No.116/2005 filed before IX Addl. MACT, Raipur for enbaiiceinent bave becn filed by the claimants, we are deaUng witb those appeals along-with the appeals filed by the Insuraace Compaay. 5. Brief facts of the case in all the cases are cominon as aU appeals are arising out of the same accident, which are as under: On 04.07,2004 at about 11.30 p.m. deccased Pramod Chaadrakar, Indra Kumar, Nemichand & Oin Prakasbwere staadiag along with fheir Motorcycle and were tatkmg witli each ofher on the roadside ofNational Highway No. 217 near. viUage Mama-Bharya Eiagbahara District - Mahasamund. At fhat time, a Truck beariag registration No. M.P.12-T/2899 which was driven by noii-applicaat No. 1 Murli. Maaohar ia a rash aad negligent niauner suddenly dashed thein, as a result ofwhich, aU the above four persons died on the spot. 6. Shri Dashrafh Gupta, learued couiisel for tbe appeUant Insuraace Coiupaay contends that there was contri&utoiy negligence on the part of driver of tbe motorcycle aad the quaatum fixed by fhe Tribunal is excessive. ~^1- 7. Beforc coasidering the question of qiiantuin, it is necessary to consider the conteution raised by the leamed couasel for tbe insurance Coinpaay to the efFect that fhere was contributory negligence on the part of driver of tbe two- wheeler but a perusal of thc record shows fhat the offending Truck dashed the motorcycle from behind and it is evident that that aU the 4 persons (deceased) who werc standing alongwifh the Motorcycle were talldng on the road side aad it cannot be said that fhe inotorcycle was in inoviag condition aad in such situation there was probability ofdeafh ofaB the four persons when tfae Truck suddenly dashed and crushed aU ofthein. Hence fhis contention is not sustaiaable. 8. Now we come to the question of quantum involved in difFerent awards. M.A.So,9T5/2006 &M.A. Hol60/2006 In Claun Case No. 1 17/2004 giving rise to these appeals, the inonthty iiicome of the deceased bas been assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.2000/- per inonth After deducting l/3rd towards personal and Uvuig expenses, tht remainder has been worked out m round figures as Rs.1400/- and fhe loss of aunual dependency as Rs.16,800/-. The age of tbe deceased has been treated by fhe Tribunal as 25 years and therefore, according to the multiplier scale giveil in Sarla Verma (Smt.) -vs- DeVii Transport Corponrtton 'and another (Para 40) reported ia (2009) 8CC 121, multiplier 18 should have been Biade applicable. However, the Tribunal has appUed milltipUer 17 which seems to be on lower side. Therefore, on applymg SB Aoaaptiadap jo sso{ tBniiTie aip pne -/oOfrS'sy SB passasse aaaq SBq j3piiiBniai sip 'sasaadxa iBno&iad spiBAtq pjg/T 3Tip3Tip3p J3yv •Tpaom jad -/009E'sa SB p3SB333p 3qi JO 3HI03TII 3qi H3i(e( SBq (Bunquj^ 3Tp 'si'eadde 3S3q^ 01 asu gttiATS SOOS/9TT'°N SSBO CTTIBIO itl 906&70LVWVVI <B 900Z;/96e-°N-(0)-VW •Vl3}X3 3Aoqe 3Tp o^ psgiponi si SOOE; 'JaqoioQ qiSZ patep PJBAB p3Ti8ndnK gqj, 'ued m p3AO[[B ST 900E;/S/,6'C>N'V'V\[ pdB passimsip si 900S/09T'ON'V'W 'aoitSH •spexa ST ^nsTnyEBd 3Tp ^R aortTiad Tare'13 3Tp jo 8trr(g jo aiBp 3Tp Tao-g ninuuti isd %g @ isaiaiui A-UBO OS^B HBqs •(TinoTire pres aqi 'aiojajaqj, •mnmjB jad isaisini <%,9 paiuBiS SBI[ IBimquj, aqj, '-/00l7'ee'e'sy o» psoHBipia Aqaisq si pue sq ai. aiqs^ si iBonquj, sip A:q papaBAB ^TmoHiB sqi 'axojajsqj. •Vieyaddv aip nioug: SApoai cq papTiaa SJB S}TIBT[IIB[O aqi qorqa -/OOt''ZE<e'sy oi ssnioo uoriBsiiaduioo leicq aip - /OOt''ZO'e"sa ST WCt Aoaapnadap jo ssoi TB^OI 3Tp 01 lunoiire sirp 8uippE -isyv 'spBsq jarpo aqi jgpim -/000'0£"sy cq saTHOO {{B TII qorqa 'sssugdxs lE.iaimj JQJ -/OOOS'sy pOB 3»B»S3JOSSOT JOJ -/OOOS •sa 'foOO'ST'sy IBlojJ siiiEmpto E jgtpo jo losdsai ui aopoage pTOB 3AO[ jo sso( joj qoea - /OOOS 'sil PTtB AlOpUM. aqi jo loadsai Tti uinp-iosTioo jo ssoi •loj -/ooOS'sy 133 o* p3Ilpaa aq ppioA siTremiB[3 sqi 'spBaq jaq^o J3AO 'aiojajgqj, •aiBnbgpe tou si oo^ ^eq^ ^nq 'spBaq jaipo J3pun I[B Tn -/OOS6'SH p31trej3 seq panquj, aq} 'snp sapisag •arsahsps iou si qorqAi 009'S8'C'sa SB Aongpirsdap jo ssoi pqoi aqi passassB SBq TBimquj, sqj, --/oofr'ZO'e'sy SB ^no p33(JOA SBM Aonapnadap jo ssoi lEtot 3Tp 'g^ .t3iidrtpiTa -^- J;J Rs.28,800/- (2400 x 12). Since the age ofdeceased was 38 years, accordiag to fhe inultiplier scale given in Saria Vermas case (supra), multiplier 15 would be applicable. However, the Tribunal bas appUed inultiplier 13 wliich is on lower side. Therefore, on applying inultiplier 15, fhe total' loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,32,000/- (28,800 x 15). Besides this, the claimants are entitled to Rs.5000/- towards loss of consortiuin in respect ofwidow, Rs.5000/- each for loss of love aud affection ia respcct of two cbildren (total Rs.10,000/-); Rs.5000/- for loss ofestate and Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses which in all comes to Rs.25,000/- under the other heads. After addiag this amount to fhe total loss of dependency fhat is Rs. 4,32,000/-, the total compensation coines to Rs.4,57,000/-. However, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,91,900/- which is iaadeqiiate and the same liable to be and is hereby enlianced to Rs.4,57,000/-. The interest @ 9% per anniim has been granted but ia Claim Petition No. 117/2004, the interest @ 6% per armum has been graitted by a different Tribunal. Therefore, ia our opinion, fhere shoiild a uniform rate ofinterest. Hence, fhe claunants ^. are eiititled to 6% siinple interest per annum fhrough out from the date of filing of the claim petition t01 the payment is made. The appeals arisiag out of Claim Case No. 116/ 2005 are allowed in part and impugned award dated 31.03.2006 is miodified to tbe above extent. M.A.C. 394/2006 8s M.A.C. 406/2006 Siace we have enlianced the amount of compensation in other appeals, we are not mclined to reduce fhe amounts ''Y";, -7- awarded in Claim Cases No.52/2005 and 20/2004 giviag rise to tbese appeaJs. However, the interest @ 9% per anmim graated by the Tribuxial is rcduced to 6% per anmim, The iinpugaed awards stand modified. In the result, M.A.No. 160/2006 is disniissed and M.A.975/2006, M.A(C).396/2006, M.A.(C). No.270/2006 M.A(C).394/2006 & M.A(Cj.406/2006 are allowed m part. No order as io costs R4p/ Kaxnde Sd/- I.M. Quddusj Judge Sd/- prashantKumar Mishra Judge