IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C) No. ..^.t>.to OF 2008 (APPEAL VALUED AT Rs.6.25,000 /-) APPEALUNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEmCLES ACT. 1988 APPELLANT (Non- Applicant No.3) RESPONDENTS (ApplicantNO.l) :1. (APPLICANTNO^^ ^y^^ (APPLICANT N0.2) ^•^^»^- (NON-APPLICANT ^ :3. N0.1) (NON-APPLICANT (-:4. N0.2) National Insurance Coinpany Liniited, Through: Its Branch Manager, Branc-Office, Kosabadi, Korba, Tah. 85 Distt.-Korba (C.G.) VERSUS Naresh Verma, S/O-Late Ramchandra Verma, aged-50 years, Smt. Geeta Verma, W/0-Naresh Verma, aged- 36 years, Both are R/o-HIG-09-Cl, Niharika Road, Korba, Distt.-Korba (C.G.) Kamal Kumar, S?o-Vedram Rathore, aged-37 years, R/o- Saraipali, Baradwara, Hall Mukam Saragbundia, Tah. & Distt.-Korba (CG) (Driver) Jaiprakash Vasan, S/0- J.S.Vashan,R/0-M/S J.J.Construction, T.P.Nagar, Korba, Distt.-Korba (C.G.) ''!<^.. '<: <:i- •-a<«w!*i° ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ. I.A. fcl No. 1166/2008 National insurance Company Lt< Naresh Verma and others Non-applicant No.3 Present: '. Dashrath Gupta, counsel for the appellant/insurance company. None for respondents No. 1 & 2, though served. Ir. Parag Kotecha, counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4. :th This appeal has been filed against the award of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Korba, dated 25.1.2008 in Ciaim Case No.69/07 by the appellant/insurance company only questioning the calculation made in awarding compensation without following the principles of law laid down by the three-judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UP State Road Transport Corporatioii and others Vs. Trilok Chandra S, ofters, 4 SCC 3G2, which were later on follpwed in SarSa reported in (2009) 6 SCC121. 02) Brief { the case are that on 24.5.2004, while Sanket Verma was going from Darri to Korba by motorcycle Bajaj Pulsar bearing registration No. CG 12/1949, respondent No.3 by drivlng Dumper bearing registratton No. CG 12 ZC rashly and negtigently dashed Sanket Verma, as a result of which he sustained grieyous injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot. At the relevant time, the deceased by assistlng his father in his business was getting Rs.25000;'- per 2- ^o month as salary. Respondents No. 1 & 2 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act, 1 988 (in short "the Act") for a totai compensation of Rs.1,35,50,000/- against the death of Sanket Verma under various heads. 03) We have heard learned counse! for the parties, perused the LCR as also the impugned award. 04} Under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, it h-as been provided that the law deciared by the Supreme Court shai! binding on all Courts within the territory of india. Therefore, it was bounden duty of the Tribunal, while decidlng the claim petition, to follow/ the law iaid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which is the law ofthe land, but fhe same has not been ione by the Tribunal. 05) The deceased was a bachelor, aged about 20 years. The parents were also not dependent upon the deceased as it has corne in the statement of father that the deceased was worklng in his firm and was handling his business. The c!aiman?s are only two i.e. the parents and as such, to what extent the loss of dependency would be, has not been considered by the Tribunal. Besides this, the deduction for personai and living expenses from the income of the deceased has not been made properly. There should have been 50% deduction in such cases, however, the Tribunai has deducted only 1/3 . The multiplier applied by the Tribunal aiso requires to be reconsidered. Therefore, in our opinion, the matter requires reconsideration at the end ofthe Tribunal. 06) In the result, we allow this appeal in part, set aside the impugned award and remit the matter back to the Tribunal to decide the case afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, in the light ofthe observations made above. 07) Needless to mention that the parties shal! be aitowed to amend the pieadings, adduce further evidence, flle documents or get the docuraents verified eto. and thereafter, the award shaii be made afresh. 3, 08) Parties shall appear before the Tribunai on 24th August, 2011. tespondents No. 1 & 2 are not present/represented today, therefore, notice be issued fo them for intimation about their appearance before the Tribunai on 24 August, 2011. 09) LCR shal! be sent back to the Tribuna! without further delay. 10) No order as to costs. 11) Certified cop^ as per ruies. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge G. n Judge ^