IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BlLASPURtC.O.S 1?..« M.A.(C) No. 1&?.?. OF 2008 fAPPEAL VALUED AT Rs 22.01.5607-1 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEfflCLES ACT. 1988 ,io.n Baneh APPELLANT (Non- Applicant No.3) i0-^"'-^t^\'> ^^"<3^>:^, ..-• ^:^"", United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through: Its Branch Manager, Branch-Office Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Bilaspur, Tah.& Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.). ^""" ^e'^- ..^- Versus RESPONDENTS 1 ^ (AppUcantNO.l) Mst. Chhedin Bai, Wd/o- Late Baliram, aged -41 years. ~ (AppUcant N0.2) 2 c Ku. Anita, D/o Late Baliram, aged- 20 years, Both are R/o- Hall-Mukam Tulsi 2/34, Rajkishor Nagar Bilaspur (C.G.) (AppUcant N0.3) 3 (AppUcant N0.4) 4 L. Rajkumar, S/o- Late Balira^aged about-19years, Rajkumari, D/o—LateBaliram, aged about- 18 years, (Applicant No. 5) 5 c Nandkumar, S/o- Late Baliram, aged about- 16 years, minor- through Mother-Mst. Chhedin Bai, (Respondent No.l) Respondent No. 3 to 5 are permanent R/o -Khongapani,Tah. -Manendragarh, Distt - KoriacG^A. (Non-Applicant No.l) Ramprasad, S/o- Sukhlal Pradhan, aged-48 years, R/o - Village-Medva Tola, P.3.- Bhalumada, Distt. Anuppur (M.P.) (Non-Applicant 7 No.2) (Non-Applicant No.4) 8 Executive Engineer, M.P. East Zone Vidyut Vitran Company Limited Anuppur, Through:JuniorEngineer,M.P.E.B, R.K.Shrivastava, S/o-Badrinath Shrivastava, R/o- Anuppur, Tah. 8s Distt. Anuppur (M.P.) (Owner Of Truck No. M.P.- 17/0487) Divisional Engineer, M.P.E.B. Sidhi,Distt. Sidhi (M.P.) ^ HIGH^OURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M.A. (Q No. 1015 of 2008 Appellant United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Respondents Mst. Chhedin Bai 85 others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 8s Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal, JJ Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Bhagwati Kashyap, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 5. None for the respondents No. 6 to 8. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 11th day of November, 2010 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. This appeal, filed by the Insurance Company, arises from the award dated 16.6.2008, passed by the 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 9/2007, awarding total compensation of Rs. 22,01,560/- to the claimants. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 31.7.2005 deceased Baliram, who was working as C.C.M. Helper in the 8.E.C.L. Hansdeo Area, Kurja Colliery, after completion of the duty hours was returning to his home by his motorcycle, bearing registration No. C.G.-16/6525. When he reached near Parsapani Khedia the motorcycle of the deceased has stopped to run owing to some problem. While the deceased was trying to start his motorcycle, the non-applicant No.l was reversing the truck bearing registration No. M.P.17 - 0487, which was loaded by iron pillars, without putting on horn etc. thereby due to the stroke of the iron ^^^ pillars Baliram died on the spot. The offence was registered in the Police Station Bijuri under Section 304-A of the I.P.C. The claimants, being widow and four children of the deceased had filed a claim case for award of total compensation of Rs. 41,16?712/- under various heads. Learned Tribunal, having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record, assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 17,200/-. After deducting the l/5th towards personal expenses ( Rs. 3440/-) the monthly dependency was assessed as Rs. 13760/-, thereby the yearly dependency was calculated as Rs. 1,65,120/-. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the age of the deceased between 45 to 50 years, applied the multiplier of 13 and it has been held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 21,46,560/- towards loss of dependency. In addition to that Rs. 20,000/- were granted towards loss of consortium, Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 5000/- for funeral expenses. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 22,01,560/- was awarded along with 6% interest from the date of the application i.e. 20.7.2007. It has been further directed that if the amount of compensation is not paid within one month, it shall carry the interest at the rate of 9% p.a. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the lower Court record. The challenge in this appeal is on the question of quantum. The appellant has obtained permission under Section 170 ofthe Motor VehiclesAct, 1988. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has assessed the dependency on higher / ..,^'^'"%v ..•••^- "'^ ^ . .:•'--''-,-1,.^, ; 'w^'^ V^ 'i:"^r"<' \ ' •• • ^^•^•' ^^ side looking to the monthly income of the deceased. The Tribunal has not considered that the deceased was liable to pay income tax/professional tax etc. and due to untimely death the employer has granted compassionate appointment to the widow of the deceased. He also submits that the deceased was also negligent therefore it was a case of contributory negligence. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that for earning such an income the deceased was liable to pay income tax, profession tax etc. Thus, considering the facts and circunistances, we assess the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/~ p.m. We are of the opinion that the standard deduction on the personal expenses of the deceased as has been made by the Tribunal i.e. l/5th only, is not correct. In the case on hand, the standard deduction should have been l/4th of the income of the deceased and according to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) SCC 121 the multiplier of 13 would be applicable in the present case.Thus after deducting l/4th (Rs. 3,750/-) we assess the monthly dependency as Rs. 11,250/-. 9 . Therefore, we assess the total loss of dependency as Rs. 11,250 x 12 x 13 = 17,55,000/-. Further, the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 55,000/- ( Rs. 20,000 + 30,000 + 5000), as has been awarded by the Tribunal under other heads. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs. 18,10,000/- as compensation. 10. The Tribunal hasalso committed an error in awarding the penal int^rest. Therefore, we direct that the claimants would be entitled ' ^.^.^^^ v- Thakur ^ ?l 'i' to get interest only at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the application i.e. 20.7.2007 till payment of the amount of compensation. 11. We modify the impugned award accordingly. Rest of the terms and conditions of the award passed by the M.A.C.T. shall remain intact. 12. In view of the foregoing, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award dated 16.6.2008 is modified to the above extent. No order as to costs. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge ^"