IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILAPSUR Misc. Anneal {C} No. / '2><:?^ /2009 APPELLANT ..^ ,,.-..• -~''^ < ^i.-^"' ..,¥•» sW ^•••' RESPONDENTS t"- n[y5 H^^^^ef Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, First Floor, Chawla Chambers, Above U.T.I. Bank, Jeevan Bima Marg, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Through Bilaspur Office Near Bus Stand, Opposite Chintu Lodge, Bilaspur (C.G.) {Insurer} VERSUS 1) Smt. Shashi Bai W/o Late Devilal Satnami, aged about 27 years, 2) Ku. Lakhani D/o Late Devilal Satnami aged about 7 years, 3) Santcharan S/o Late Devilal Satnarai aged about 05 years, Respondent no. 2 8s 3 minor represented through Inatual guardian inother respondent no.l Smt. Shashi Bai, 4) Belalbai W/o Late Chheduram Satnami, aged about 60years, All R/o Village Turkadih, Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.) (Claiinantsl 5) Dharamprakash Chaturvedi S/o Chhedilal Chadurvedi, R/o Near Uslapur gate, Thana Chakarbhata, Bilaspur (C.G.) Another Address Shiv Chowk Kududand Thana Civil Lines Biaspur (C.G.) (Ownerl MEMORANDUM OF APPEALUNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 AS AMENDED BY ACT OF 1994 ,\ mcffii <X»XJRToy CHHATNSOARH. BiLAaniR DB: Hoa'ble I. M. QIIDDU8I & Hon'bte G. MI»IAJX»DD»,JJ APPBUANT: RE8PONIMBKT8: APPBLLAHT: RB»PONDBHT8s M. A ICt No.137S/2009 Royal SuBdanun Alliance Iiisuraace Company Ltd. Vs. Siat Shashi Bai aad 4 ofheis M. A (Ct No. 1377/2009 R<yal Siuidarani AUiance tasurancc Company Ltd. Vs. Smt Urmila Bai axad 3 others «a9C. APPBAL8 OT1DBR SBCIION 173 OP THB MOTOR VEHICLB8 ACT. 1988 s?-->.. Appeanucc: Mr. Sachin Siagh Rajput, couasel for the appcUant(8) Insurance Company. PCT LM. OUDDUSI. J. CTBSALORDBR p».o7.aoii) 1. These arc two appeate fled by the Insuraaec Company against fhe inapugaed awards dated 30.03.2009-"& 26.03.2009 passed by tfae II Addl. Motor AccUent CIaaaas Tribunal, Bflaspur (C.O) in Claim Casc No. 101/2006 (Smt Shashi Bai and ofhera -vs- Dhaiamprakash Chatur»ediand aaothei) aad Claina Case No.89/2007 (Smt Unnila Bai aad qjthera -vs- Dharam Prakash Chaturvedi and anothei) /-, respectively so far as it relates to fastening ofliability on fhe Insuraace Coinpaay as also quantum fixed by fhe Trft>iinal. M.A(C).No. 1375/2009 relates to Claim Case No.101/2008 asd M.A(C). No.1377/2009 relatcs to Claim Case No. 89/2007. Siace both thesc appeala arise out thc same accideat caused by Maruti Vaa bearing Regn.No. C.Q.10-A/5049, fhey are being disposed ofbyttus comiuon ordcr. 2. Brief facts of fhe case are that on 20.02.2007 deceased Devilal Satnami under fhe instruction of driver of Tiact' 3. TroUey bearmg No.C.G.10-ZD/0979 was tiymg to fix a^ breaker bebind the troUey by putting a wooden log bcbind fhe tires of TroUey. At fhat tunc, one Maruti Van bearing Regn.No. C.G.10-A/5049, which was beiag driven by deceascd Bansilal Kaivart .dashed fhe Tractor-Trollev, as a.'l result ofwhich, both DevUal Sataami and BansUal Kaivart died. The legal heirs/depcndcnts of deceascd Dcvilal have filed Claiin petition being Claim Case No. 101/2008 undcr section 166 of fhe Motor Vchiclcs Act for thc total award of coinpensation of Rs.56,05,000/- whcrcas the le,gal representatives/dcpendents ofdeceased Bansilal have filed Claiin Petition being CIaini Casc No.89/2007.;imder scction 163-A of fhe Motor Vehicles Act for award o£--total comipensation ofRs.4,28,500/-. The Leamed Claiins Tribunal having rcgard to fhe facts situation and inaterial on record has held that Maruti Van bearing Rega. No. C.G.10-A/5049 was involved in thc accident, as a result ofwhich, deccased Devilal and Bansilal L..'" ^. B '"tesS'-' 'j j? .< -' '^t^, 'l'r:y' ^' 6. both died and there was no breach of coiMlitfons of iasuiaace poUcy by noa-applicaat no.l aiid has awanlcd 3,50,000/- in Claim Case No.l01/20C«aad Rs.3,70,000/- ia Claiin Case No. 89/ 2007 which fhe claanants arc e&titted to received STOIU tbe non-appUcaats joiafty axid severalty. Shri Sasbxa Singh Rajput, leamed couascl for the appeBaat submits that fhe inarriagc party was takcn in fhe Maruti Van which was being driven by the deceased Bansflal. But the facts on recoid are different to the siriwnisaon aaadc by learaed counsel for the appellaat Thc Maruti van was enipty and after pouring petrol m the vchicle, Baasilal startcd his vehfcle which stru<& against a statioiuuy Tractor and Trolleiy aad tbc other person natndy Dewlal (deceaacd) who was out side the tioUey and at fhat tuac he was loadu^; some stoiies in the back side of tbe trollqr. TheBefore, fhe subinissioas made by teamed counsel for the appeUant are unsustamable. On perusal of the reeord, we ha»enot found euiy manifest erior ofiaw in the fiadings given by tfac Claims TribiBiaL Leamcd counsel for the appcllaat fiufher subnatB that tiie deceased peisons were einptoyees and tiasy coukl ha»e approachcd the Conuntesioxicr under the WoTkiacn s Compensation Act where tfaey could get iaterest @ 12% per annnm and thc pcnally ateo but they psefesTed to fite cdaim petition bcfore the Claiaas Tribimal onty. Since the awatds havc alrealy beea passed by the Claims Trlbunal, at tfaia stage, wc are not inclined to entertain this submisafon of leamed counael for the appdlanfc ^£^^-^&?i ^St??Sffti;^y? 7. Wifh. regard to the quaatum. part, in Claiin Case No. 101/2008 ffled u/s 166 of the MVA, thc aiuiual income ofthe deccased has been assessed as Rs.2500/- per DKHith aud Rs.30,000/- per aanum which needs no interfcrence. After deducting l/3rd, fhe reminder comes to Rs.20,000/-. Since at fhe tiine ofaccident the age ofdeceascd Devilalwas 33 years, multiplier 16 was rightty appUcd ia accordaace wifh fhe decision offhe Suprcme Court Sarla Venna. (Snst.) -va- Delhl Tremsport Co»poratton<ind *uu»Uier rejported in. (2009) 6 SCC 121. Further, the amounts awarded the ofher heads are also not on h^her side. Therefore, there, * is no ground for interference in case of quantuin in claim case No. 101/2008. 8. In claim case No.89/2007 ffled under scction 163-A of the MVA, though the claimants havc plcaded fhat the income of fhe deccased Bansilal was Rs.3000/ - per inonfh, yet the Tribunal has taken thc inonthly incoine as Rs.2500/- and fhe aanual incoiac as Rs.30,000/- per aTiniiin, which needs no interferencc. After deducting l/3rd towards pereonal -^ expcnses, the annual loss of dependency was workcd out as Rs.20,000/-. The dcceascd was aged about 32 ycara. Therefore, according to the Sccond Schcdute-prescribed u/ s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Tribunal has rightiy applied fhe multiplier of 17. Thus, the total loss of dependency coines to Rs.3,40,000/-. Howcver, it has granted Rs. 30,000/- over the othcr heads that is Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium; Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenscs which seenis to be on higher side. According to the Second f' W' .-S3' 9. Schediile, fhe Clannants axe only entifled to Ra.5000/- for loss of coiisortium; Rs.2500/- &r loss of estate and Rs.2000/- for funeial expenses, which in aB comeB to Rs.9500/-. Aflier adding fhfa amount to thc totat loss of compcnsation, fhe total amount of coinpensation coanes to Rs.3,49,500/- (Rs.3,40,000 + Rs.9,500). The Ttibunal has awarded Rs.3,70,000/- which is on hqiher sidc, Thereforc, the impi^ned award dated 26.03.2009 is icduccd to Rs.3,49,500/-. Rest of the conditions of tte impugncd awaxd shaU remaia unchaaged. In fhe result, M.A.C.No.1375/2009 is dismisaed and M.A.C.No. 1377/2009 is allowcd in part. Sd/- G.Minhajuddm Judge y Rao ^^^^'^.-'..•^•.^if-