./^, -* ass ^^^^J'^::!.;:-^ ECTi^^li®Fiveats@ ~^r'^ ^- IN THE HI6H~COURT JUNCATURE AT BILASPUR Misc. ADpeal rCINo. °i5ll OF 2011 OivisionBencl APPELLANT [NSURER RESPONOENTS CLAIMANTS ^ ^ Driver ^x OU>n&/r ^ranch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Seneral Insurance Cpmpany Ltd. Division office Shivmohan Bhawan, Vidhansabha Road Pandri Raipur C.Q. VERSUS Smt. JagFnan Bai W/o Late Phool Sai Rajwad, Aged 55 Years. Ravishankar S/o LatePhool Sai Rajwade Aged 38 Years. Shiv Shankar S/o Late Phool Sai Rajwade Aged 35 Years. All Respondent are R/o Village — Kenapara P.S. Baikunthpur Th. Baikuntpur District - Koriya C.G. ,0^ ^'Virendra Kumar Bedi S/o Hulas Ram tfa><( J,< -^-^-.--.-..^. --- - a-'f'y Bed, Aged 24 Years Occupation —4-" Driver R/o Premabag Quarter No. R.C. 8/6 Baikuntpur , P.S. arid Th. Baikuntpur District - Koriya C.G. g)5 ^Vjmal Kant Supta S/o Laxmi Prasad ^•%'ll 6upta, Aged48 Years, R/o Vitlage - Schoolpdra, Baikuntpur, Th. <«"• Owner ^ 5 | VimatKcuf^-fiqrta' S/u Luxnii Pru&ud (Supta-Ageel-48 yyurs> R/u Villuyit— Sfihoelpapa—-emtamtpiiT;—~—rh. .Bwkyntpup-Bistr'ict" Koriya C.&: ,' a^.og'l) APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT A6AINST THE ~^^'~ :- AWARD/ORbER DATED 28.02.2011 PASSE& BY. MOTOR ACCIbENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL KORIYA (BAIKUNTPUR) (C.6) PRESIOEb OVER BY SHRI T.K.JHA . IN C.T. N0 54/2009. cgs ^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble I. M. QUDDUSI & Hoii'ble O. ISIHHAJUDNM, JJ M. A}C1. No. 934/2011 APPELLANT: RESPONDENTS: Branch Maaager, Bajaj ABianz General Insuran.ee Cosipany Ltd. Vs. Siat. Jagiuan Bai arid ofhers MISC. APPEAL UKDER SECTION 173 OF THB MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 19SS Appecircince! Mr. Ghaashyaiii Patel, counsel for fhe Appeliaats. Mr. Sameer Sin.gh, couasel for respoadents 1 to 4. ORAL ORDBR (16.12.2011) Per I.M. OUDDUSI, J, 1. This appeal has been filed by the Insui-ance Coiiipany agaiast the iiapugned award dated 28.02.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Koriya (Baikunfhpur), in. Claioi Case No.54/2009 in. so far as it relates to quantuui only. 2. Brief facts of the case as per tfa.e versiou of the claimauts are Tliat on 02.05.2009 at about 11.30 p.m., (night) CIiho+clal (deceased) along-wifh- his fnend Krishna Kuin?u- after givin^ aaswer to Uie caB of nature was coining 011 fhe left side of the niain r->ad. At that tune, a Mahendra vehicle bearinj Regn.C.G. 16/5067 which was being driven by Virendia Kuinar Bedi, respondent no.4 hereia, in rash and negUgent inaaner suddenly hit the deceased, as a result of which, he sustained ^rievous iuiuries and died. The deceased was aged about 30' 't- t S ^.v^ ^) 5, years. He was eaniing Rs.12,000/- per month by agricultural works aad aaimals husbaadrv. The claLmants being dependents/legal representatives .have ffled claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. for the award of a total coiupensation ofRs. 12,25.000/- onvarious heads. Leanied Claims Tribuual has held that the ofFending vehicle was itivolved in fhe accident which took place due to rash and negligent driviug of its driver respoudent no.4, due to which, Chhotelal sustataed grievous iaiuri.es and died; fhe driver was having valid and effective driviug licence; there was no breach of conditious of tbe insuraace policy aad fhe claimants are entitted to receive a total compensation of Rs.3,26,000/- froin fhe non- appUcauts. We have heard leamed counsel for the pardes aad have also gone fhrough the record. Though ia fhe claiin petition, fhe inconie was pleaded as Rs. 12.000/ - per monfh but the Tribunal has held fhat fhere was no docuxaentary proof in suRport of fhe tacoiue aad fherefore treatmg fhe deceased as unskiUed labourer. it has taken the iacoine as Rs.3000/- per inonfh and Rs.36,000/- per aiinuiu, which cannot be said to be uareasonable. Siace the deceased was bachelor, fhe Tribunal haa. r^hfly deducted 50% towards personal aud liviag expenses. Thus after deductmg 50%, the annual loss of dependency would couie to Rs.18000/-. In case the parents are claimants, the age of parents are to be considered. In the uistaut case, since the inother is alive aad she .f'-'' —. joiaed as Claim.an.t No. 1 fb.e age of m.0fher is to be taken. into consideration for assessiag the total loss of depeadency. She,- < 1 fVSBaa^ | ^ ";i^'" .^" "^ ''^""-^" "ss»caass"y ^ was aged about 55 years. According to aiultiplier scale prescribed by Hon'ble fhe Supreme Coiirt in S<srla Venna fSmt.1 -vs- Selhi Treutsiiort Comoration eawt tin.other reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 vide para 40, multipUer 11 would have been applicable. On applyuig inultiplier 11, ftie total loss of dependency would coiue to Rs.1,98,000/-. Besides fhis, the claiinaats are also entifled to receive Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses which in aU coines to Rs. 15,000/- under other heads. Ifwe add Rs.15,000/- to fhe total loss of dependency(l,98,000 + 15,000), the total compensation comes to Rs.2,13,000/- whicfa fhe claiaiants are entitted to receive froin tfae appellant. The Tribunal has assessed fhe total coiupensatioa ainount as Rs.3,26,000/- which seeius to be excessive. Therefore, fhe appeal is allowed in part. The im.pugned award is niodified to the extent fhat fhe claimants would be entitled to get Rs.2,13,000/- as amount of coiapensation ia aU. Rest of the coaditions inentioned ia the impuened award includingi fhe iaterest shail remaia iatact. lu fh.e result, fhe appeal is allowed in part. The impugued award dated 28.02.2011 is inodified ia the above tenns. No order as to cost. ^L-^ ^•^ Sd/- .... G.Minb^ddin judge Rao f"