C'l IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR M.A.fC) -5&*1 4 /2010 Divisioti &•flfll APPELLANT NON APPLICANT a^ :NATIONALINSURANCE CO.LTD. Through Divisional Manager, No.2 ^'^.<^$^1-~"' G-E- Koad, Raipur (C.G.) ,<l5..'-^Lfe?^- s»5^-^^-"; ys"^ .v-~v/\^'v" ^.^";^^^^ ?-''\J^':^^rs" ys^' RESPONDENTS APPLICANT N0.1 APPLICANT N0.2 VERSUS /^ SURENDRA SINGH AGED 48 YEARS ^ S/o Late Kartal Singh , : Smt. Kuldeep Kaur aged 47 Yrs. W/o Surender Singh Arora Both R/o Sakin E-22 Sector 5, Devendra Nagar Tah & District Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENT N0.3 NON APPLICANT N0.1 r RESPONDENT N0.4 NONAPPUCANT ^ N0. 3 MUKESH AGARWAL S/o Late Ayodhya Prasad Agarwal R/o SakinAlokTelcom,. Pithoura Post & Thane Pithora, Distt. Mahasamunda (Owner ofScropio No. CG04/5372) Manjeet Singh S/o Surendra Singh Arora R/o E-15, Sector 5, Devendra Nagar Raipur (C.G.) (Owner ofC.G. 04 HA/6905) RESPONDENT N0.5 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. NONAPPLICANT ^ Through Divisional Manager N0. 4 Behind Jeevan Beema Office Pandari Tahsil 8s Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ..2.. ^^S?i^®%;^^?^^^^^^%%S^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^jS^ -^:^:'^S^^^^^l;'s®^l^^^^:^r^^:''!;i:K^^%gl^^§M ^^^€^6SS^^ ..2.. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. \^S'fSgSS:iS3SS3SS£s^&'--SS~ss^S^i'S^'. ^f^ HIGHCOURT OF CHKAmSOARH. BILASTOR DB: HON'BLB I.M. QUDDU8I & HON'BLB N.K. A6RAWAL, JJ MI8C. APPEAL (Cl Mo.514 OF 2010 Vs. MISC. APPEAL UNDER SBCTION 173 OF THB MOTOR VEHICLE8 ACTJL988 APPEARANCB: Mr, SIuikumar Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anaad Gupta, couusel for the appeUant. Mr. Harish Mohant, counsel for respondent no.3. Per I.M. QUDDUSI. J JUDGMENT (ORALI (01.09.2010) 1. This appeal has been filed by fhe Insurance Conipany on fhe question of quaatum ia fhc iinpugned award dated 17.12.2009 passed by VII Addl. Motor Accidcnt Claims Tribunal, Raipur ia Claim Case No.88/2008. ^....; ' 2. Brieffacts ofthe case are as under: \ (i) On the fateful day i.e., 20.07.2008 at 5.25 p.m. Jaspreet Siagh was driving fhe Maruti Swift Car beariug Regn.No.C.G.04-H.A/6905 which was commg towards Sundarkora-Nawapara. Ritesh Blianusali and SIiivam Mahobe were also traveUiag ia the said Car. At tfaat time, near Dhanaud juaction, one Scorpio Vehiclc bearing Regn. No.C.G.04-H.A./5372, which was being driven rashly aud negligently by its driver, dg^hed the Maruti Swift aad turaed turUe just going a head. The driver of fhe Scoipio vehicle dicd on tiie spot. -Jasprit Singh Driver of fh.e Maruti. Swift aad BhaausaU also died due to grievous iujuries received ia fhe saM ^ts^.sis'iCSSO^ APPBLLANT National Insurance CoinpanyLtal^ RESPONDBMT8 , Sureadra Singh and ofhers »^1 ^&oi^^ Lf., - •... •ssM Siss '"'«.,- s'wdss&. i '^ii:^"'''' accident whereas aaofher passenger Shivam. Mahobe| also sustained serious injuries which caused him permanent disability. (ii) Respondents 1 & 2 are fhe parents of the deceased Jaspreet Siagh, who vraa 25 years of a^e aad was umnarried on the date of accident. . Respondent no.3 Mukesh Agrawal is owner of the Scorpio No.C.G.04- HA/5372. Respondent no.4 Manjeet Singh was owner of Maruti Swift. (Ui) Respondents 1 & 2 being claimaats have filed the appUcation claiming Rs.2,42,05,000/- and pleaded fhat the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving offhe Scorpio which dashed the Swift Car. Accordiag to the appellant, the Car waa used for couunercial purposc aud the driver had no vaUd licen.ee and he was driving the Car rashly aad negligenfly. (Iv) The Tribunal after hearing the pardes and considering the inaterial on record, has awarded Rs. 13,63,150/ - in all as coaipensation. 3. The Claiiaaats have produced the eamiug detafls of fhe deceased Smm the year 2002 to 2008-09. The Tribunal opiaed fhat the deceased was having different iacomes finm d.3fferent earuiags in eveiy year. In the iucoine tax retura - filed by fhe deceased for fhe assessinent year 2008-2009, fhe iacoine of the deceased was assessed as Rs.1,49,850/-. In such a situation, the Tribimal opined that it would be appropriate to work out the compensation on the basis of details ofinconie shown ia fhe retum filed before the Incoine Tax Department for the assessment year 2008-09. The date ofbirth ofthe deceased was also nientioned as 18.01.1983 ia the tax retura as also on PAN CaTd. Therefore, the Tribunal ^ -f 1; eCS ^KKS^ held that fhe deceased was in betwcen 20 and 25 years of age and he was uninarred at fhe tnne of accident. Looldag to the fact fhat fhe deceased was bachdor, thc Tribunal opined fhat it would be appropriate to deduct one half (50%) towatds personal expenses and after deducting 50% finin the aiuiual incoine of fhe deceased i.e. Rs.1,49,850/-, fhe aanual dependen(y was worked out to Rs.74,925/-. Since the deceased was in between the age group of 20 aad 25, the Tribunal used the inultiplier 18 aad by luultiplying the aruiual dependency of Rs.74,925/- with fhe niultiplier 18, the conipensation was worked out to Rs.13,48,650/- which accordiag to the Tribunal, ftie claimants are entitled Q-om. fhe non-applicants. Besides that amount, the Tribuaal has awarded Rs.5000/- towards loss oflove and affectiou to each clannant, Rs.2000/- fbr funeral expenses, and Rs.2,500/- for loss of estate. Thus the Tnbunal awarded a total coiupensationofRs. 13,63,150/- to the claimants. 4. Leamed counsel for fhe appeUaat contents fhat award of Tribiuial is on higher side. He fiufher contends that ^ luultiplier used by the Tribunal is also on higher side. 5. The Supreiae Court ia a recent decision reported ia Sdrte Verma. (Snst.) emd. others -vs- Delhi Tremsport Corporatlon. and anwther (2009) SCC 121 has laid down vide Para 40 fhat the multipMer scate according to Column (4) in fhe given table witl be applicable. Besides this, the Apex Court further hisld that ia a case where the deceased was bachelor aad ftie parents are claimaats; nonnally 50% is deducted as personal aad liviug expenses because it is J^ assumed ttiat a bachelor would tend to spend niore on himv as self mainteiiance. SinuJar view has been expressed by the Supreme Court ia Syed Basheer Ahttmed <uid otfters -ws- Mohammed Jeuneel and another, (2009) 2 SCC 225 (Para 28). 6. The selection of inultiplier cattuot ia. aU cases be solely dependent on fhe a^e of fhe deceased and fhe age of fhe claunauts te also relevant. 'The Suprenae Coiut iu Sarfa Verma's case (supra), referrfng to the dccision in General SSanager, Kerla S.R.T.C. -vs- Susamma JViomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176, has reiterated that fhe inultiplier mefhod iavolves thc ascertaittment of the loss of dependency or the inultipUcand haviag regard to fhe circumstauces of the case and capitalizing the multipUcaad by au appropriate muIdpUer. The choice of miiltipUer is determiued by fhe age ofthe deceased or fhat ofthe claimaats whichever is Ii^her (see para 13). It has 1ae?a also been saM vide Para 17 that usuaUy in English Courts the operative inultiplier rarely exceeds 16 as maxuniun and this wiU come down accordingly as the age of the deceased person (or that of the dependauts whichever is higher) goes up. 7. In -the iastant case, since the claimaats are parents of the deceased, it is not fhe age ofthe deceascd alone but those of the parents are also relevaat. At fhe tnne of the accident, the parents were in between fhe age group of 46 - 50 aad fherefore, looking to the age of claiinants as also fhe multiplier scale in Coluian (4) ofTable given in Swla Verma's case (supra), we feel fhat it would be appropriate to adopt the I n > /' ''/y niultipUer 13. However, fhe leamed Tribunal has applied th^ inultipUer of 18 on the baaia of age of fhe deceased which iri* our opmion ia on higher side. Therefore, to this extent only, we are iuclmed to niodify the award as imder: 8. The total income of the deceased as already foiuttd by the Tribunal is Rs.1,49,850/-. After deductiug one-half (50%) towards personal expenses, the aunual dependency coines to coines to Rs.74,925/-. If we apply the inuldplier 13 as discussed above, the total dependency coines to Rs.9,74,025/- which fhe claunauts are entitled as the compensation. Therefore, in our opinion, ttie award of coiapensation of Rs.13,48,650/- applyiag fhe multiplier 18 by the Tribunal be reduced to Rs.9,74,025/-. Besides this, we allow the aniounts awarded by the Tribunal ia respect of the other heads which in aU comes to Rs.14,500/-. Thus we award a totel compensadon of Rs.9,88,525/- (Rs.9,74,025 + 14,500) to respondents 1 & 2 wifh 6% interest per anmim fi-oin the date of filmg of thc c]aim petition tUl the date of its realization. However, fhe ofher conditions inentioncd in fhe impugned award ofthe Tribuaal shall reniain uiichanged. 9. . This appeal is allowed in part to fhe extent indicated above. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Rao -t——,.—