HI6H_ COURT.OF CHH.4TTISSARH AT BIL^SPUR '"s?^ M.A No. 127/2006 COftA^: Hon'bie Shri S.R.Nayak, Chief Justice & Hon'ble Shri Dllip Raosaheb J. Appeiiant A!!iances Senera! Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office, G.EPlaza, Airport Road, Werabada, Pune (AAaharashtra) through -' Its ^enera! AAanager. ^ Res&ondents 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. AVs. Wibson Industries Pvt Ltd, Through an Director/ II Fbor, Balazi MangaJgiri Chambers, Sir ipuram, Vishakhapatnani (A.P.) Non-wpJicant No.l Sandeep Banspal, aged about 40 years,son of 9iri S.C.Banspai, resident of M.1.6. 26, Housin9 Board Colony, Bharat Mata Schooi, Tatibandh, Distt. Raipur (C.6.) Non-app iicant No.2 Smt. ^EtanJoJi Soni, about 27 years, wife of Late Ramesh Soni, ^Gpljcc^t No.l (ClaimantV Ku, Prerana Soni, about 4 years, son of Late Ramesh Soni - Minor through AAother Smt ^eetanjali Soni. App 1iaint No,2 (Claimant) NakuS Soni, aged about 60 years, son of tate Dhaneshwar Soni, Applicant No.3 (Claimant) Smt, Padma Soni, aged about 55 years/ wife of Shri Naku! SonE, ^Dplicant No.4 fC(aimant) Niiesh Soni, aged about 22 years, son of Shri Nakt1! SonE, ADplicant No.5 (Claimant) ASi are resident of sector 5 D. 425/426, Tagore Na9ar, Tahsi! and District Raipur (C.G.) Shri RajBsh Pandey, Advocate for the appellant. - g- r^ ,.^ - 2-- ORAL ORDER (Passed on 13.2.2006) The foliowing ora! order of the Co-urt passed by S.R.NAYAK, CJ. This is an preferred by the Insurance Company. While attacking th^ impugned award, the learned standing counsel for Insurance Company would contend: (i) that the (AA.otor Accidents Cldms Tribunal) M.A.CT^ is not justified in taking the annua! income of the deceased at Rs.1,50,000/-; (ii) that the AA.A.C.T ought to have held that the driver of the truck/ another vehicle involved in the accident a!so contributed negligence in causing 1+ie accident, and therefore, 1t ought to have apportEoned the blame on both the drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident and (iii) that the A^A,C,T is not Justified in applying the multiptjer 15 for assessing of dependency. We do not any merit in dny of three contentions. It has in the evidence that the just before his demise in th©accident, had fiied return showing Rs.l,45,389A as his annual income under the Incoine Tax Act, After his death, his widow, for .the succeeding year, fiied return on behatf of the showing the annual of Rsl,45,389A. The 35 as on t^ie of the acci-dent If the to alive, his -3- ^ IH^ - %- income wouSd have expectediy much more than Rs.1.49,000/-. Be that as it mqy, tlie M.A.C.T. has taken the annual income of the deceased at Rsl,50,000/- oniy and, therefore, there is no inerit in the contention of the learned counse! for the appellant that the A^.A.CX ought not to have taken the annua! income of the deceased at Rs.l,50.000/-. 2 . With regard to the piea of the appeliant-Insurance Company that tlie driver of th©truck involved in theaccident also contributed in causing the accident, suffice it to state that in paragraph 17 of the award, the M.A,C,T has considered the above of the Insurance-Company and has recorded the factua! finding that the -driver of the truck did not contribute negligence in causing the accident. The above factual finding recorded by the M.A.C,T. could not be condemned as perverse for want of legal evidence, 3. The third contention urged by the iearned counse! for the Insurance-Company is required to be noticed only to be rejected, Admittedly, the 35 years as on the date of the accident Strict!y speaking, the AA.A.C.T, ought to have applied multipiier 17 to the of dependency, and therefore, the Insurance-Company cannot have any legjtimate grievance against the award the M,A.C,T has appiied multiplier of 15. 4. We do not find any merit in the appeat and it i's according!y dismissed. No costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge *Tiy?i