^^SK^^0' INTHE HIGH COURTOFJUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH TCJSSI Rannl WSiSSS U MISC, APPEAU ^ )NO^ -^60 OF 2009 APPELLANTS/ <ON APPLICANTS .^gp^ :^^^^ 2. 8ESPONDENTS X':LAIMANTS Manoj Kumar Tiwari S/o Sewak Tiwari, aged about 26 years, occupation : Employee/ Driver, presently R/o 4 Battalion, Police Station Mana Camp, Raipur (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Rajpur (C.G.) Incharge, C.G. Anned Force, Mana Camp, Post Mana, Raipur, Distt. Raipur(C.G.) Director General of Police, Police PIeadquarters, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS ^ L, Smt. Archana Choubey, W/o L,ate Mukesh Kumar Choubey, aged about 25 years, 4 (-5 ^ ;2: Rahul Choubey, S/o I.ate Mukesh Kumar Choubey, aged about 4 years, ^ 3., Ku. Kamini Choubey, D/o Late Mukesh Kumar Choubey, aged about 7 months, All are R/o Shiv Nagar, Mathpurena, P.S. Tikarapara, Raipur (C.G.) Respondents No. 2 & 3 trough natural guardian mother Smt. Archana Choubey. <b RESPONOENTS NON APPLICANTS ,^^^ s^" ^A ^^f^, t^ ^1^;n 'JC^. ^ t)^ ,? 4. Hemin Bai, W/o Komal Choubey, ^ aged about 48 years, 5. Ku. Nimmi, D/o Komal Choubey, aged about 21 years, ^6. Ku. Dhanshri D/o Komal Choubey, aged about 17 years, Rupendra Kuinar S/o Komal Choubey, aged about 15 years Respondents No. 4 to 7 are R/o Shivnagar, Mathpurena, Police Station Tikarapara, Raipur IVIUMU Ujh' M1SC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE --—^(\_ MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. BESPONDENTS ^ONAPPIL^^NTS f^ ""^^f.'-t f.t-.Sf- nU' ,\ ll E^ ^ 1» ^'.•^^^ ^-^ -^ c^^^- v<^- ^ At"'~S- Manager, IFFCO TOKIO, I.T.G.I, 3rd Floor, Shop No. 345-347, Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, G.E. Raipur (C.G.) HLGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice l.nfl.^luddusi and Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Miscellaneous Appeal (C.) No,200^)f 2009 Appellants versus Respondents Manoj Kumar Tiwari and others Smt. Archana Choubey and others Present: Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate General for the State/appellants. Shri R.R.Sinha, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Vikrant Singh, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Y.S.Thakur, counsel for respondent No.8. None for other respondents though served. Miscellapepus AppeaLunder S^ectionJ 73_ofthe Motor Vehicles Act ORAL ORDER (Passed on 7th January, 201 1) Per I.IVI. Quddusi, J.: Heard. 2. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the State and its officers, as the Zipsy involved in the accident belonged to the Police Department of the State, challenging the award dated 14-10-2008 passed bythe 1 Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No.51/2007. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on the date of accident, i.e., 15-12-2006, one Mukesh Kumar Choubey along with his friend Ashok Kumar Verma were coming back from Rajim to Raipur in a motor cycle bearing registration No.CG 04/CQ/2098. At about 4 P.1VI., when they reached Dumartarai near Police Station Mana •-y .•f Camp, a Zipsy bearing registration No.CG 03/1450, belonging to the Police Department, which was being driven by Manoj Kumar Tiwari rashly and negligently on wrong side, dashed the motor cycle. The driver of the motor Cycle and the pillion rider of the motor cycle suffered serious injuries on their person in the accident and they died on the spot. The claimants, i.e., wife, son and daughter of the deceased Mukesh Kumar Choubey preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.62,20,000/-. 4 . The Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,12.500/- in favour of the claimants and non-claimants No.4 to 7 holding liability on non-claimants No.1, 2, 8 and 9 to satisfy the award jointly or severally. Non-claimants No.4 to 7 are widow mother, two unmarried sisters one of which was minor and minor brother of the deceased Mukesh Kumar Choubey, respectively. 5. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/appellants has raised two contentions. The first is regarding contributory negligence and the other one is regarding quantum. 6. With regard to the question of contributory negligence, we have perused the record of the Claims Tribunal and found that the Zipsy had gone towards its extreme right side. The motor cycle driver was going on its left side. There was no occasion for the Zipsy driver to go to its extreme right side breaking the rules of the traffic. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was contributory lpU |y , uy(|UiBSK su (,, negligence on the part of the motor cycle driver. Therefore, this argument is not sustainable. 7. However, on the question of quantum, we have found that the learned Claims Tribunal has taken the annual income of the deceased Mukesh Kumar Choubey as Rs.60,000/-. After deducting 1/3 for personal living expenses, loss of dependency assessed at Rs.40,000/- per annum. No doubt that the deceased was registered as assessee in the Income Tax Department but was not paying any income tax and, therefore, though he was having a Permanent Account Number (PAN) and copies of the income tax returns have also been filed but the same have not been proved. However, some other documents have been filed showing the work of the deceased as contractor. Anyhow, the income of the deceased is to be assessed as Rs.50,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/4 of the same for the personal living expenses, loss of dependency comes to Rs.37,500/- per annum. Considering the age of the deceased, which is 32 years, multiplier 16 is to be applied. Therefore, after applying the multiplier of 16, loss of dependency comes to Rs.6 Lakhs. The Claims Tribunal has also awarded some amount towards other heads. Rs.5,000/- has been awarded towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the widow of the deceased, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the two children, widow mother, one minor sister out of the two sisters and minor brother of the deceased and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. ,We are of the opinion that Rs.5,000/- should be awarded instead of Rs.2,500/- under the head loss of estate. Under the head loss of svbfWiWU'HHWSSI^e-r ^..-—~W "*-••%;., f-A fSs^ »--"^!~<''^^ s ^ £ '*^-^ ^ %s^ Gopal love and affection, instead of total Rs.20,000/-, total Rs.25,000/- i.e. Rs.5,000/- each should be awarded to the two children, widow mother, one minor sister out of the two sisters and minor brother of the deceased. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to get total compensation of Rs.6,40,000/- along with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 8. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/appellants has informed this Court that the appellants have deposited Rs.1 Lakh only. The said amount shall be adjusted towards the amount of the compensation and the interest. 9. The miscellaneous appeai is allowed in part to the above extent. There shall be no order as to costs. prashantKumarMishra Sd/— [ Jud8e I.M.Quddusi Judge -:">