IN THE HEGH CQURT OF CiiHATTI3QARE AT BILASPHE EvEséM ppeal No. g E f’ZQQé awmLgiw? ‘/, Eafwdagt Haé a U} :3 ?w 53"! Ly M , we» Mm w {kim‘m—l Emmral‘éx .3 mgany Ltiiy Divi&ia:ia1 Qif‘ka §&‘;3a1p1m imagh Diviaigmal Cificg Biiagpiig‘ {Ca} i?. PESPQNEEI‘TT J’Qaiinam Nal REEPQNDENT Claimam No2 REEPQNEENT Ga-jmant N03 1’ ‘ RESPDNDENT Claimant NQA - ‘¢I‘$U.S ”‘ Hirzm Bai, 4Q yam, ‘Wdfa Late Yashwant Rm) LaLtare, Devemim Kmnar, 20 yeam. Sfo Léte Yashwam Rae Latmg, Dhan‘nendra Kumar ,. 13 yam; Sin Late Ya&hwant Ema Latare, KarmendmW, 16 years, Mina, thxcmghnamral guaiihaa l‘vhfha’ Smt. Hjran Bali Wig Lam; Yatahwag’i Faciatag‘ég . Q' ‘ 53$ ‘3?a 5? dmayr; diff! EEéiai $333.}. H§$ig§1 {Zhaadra Sahn éé yam, Ef§ $Lihat‘?§fi§aht; Rfa Eviigfx {ZGlvnyf IéhecleLmQra Iamui, Dulg, 5": garégéitt Ri’cx MEEE. i—%mga,. Raigur (GEE). r Dxivar — Dimsiaml Enginem MREB. xadyut Nagy; Ramyur, Iabalpur (MR) : Kxl; :34. A/, RERDNDEM? {@Em‘imt Nal SEQPONDEN } ‘(D'efeftd‘int N02 RESPGNDENT J Eefendm1t Na3 ‘ ‘ / v - {9&gisiet‘eé Gwnea‘: Exmitive Engineer; 2%urkk Uccha EiaE: {NM §vam \V Easdhama Samhhag) M‘F.EB; {Esw £3EE.) Ewiai, Burg (€3.§.} [Q \i 4: , 9 x / %H§N_ gmw mwgnuzHQw5m.HawmEgaw AwmmHauLmm wgh Hg HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc Appeal No. 84 of 2004 APPELLANT Defendant No.4 Orienta! Insurance Company Ltd. Versus RESPONDENTS : ‘ Hiran Bai & Others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT DB: Hon’ble Shri Justice LM. Quddusi & Hon’hle Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal. Present : Shri Ajay Mishra, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Amrito Das, Advocate for respondent No. 4. Shri Santosh Yadu, Advocate for respondent No. 5. Shri BP Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 6 & 7. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 14‘“ day of September, 2010) Per : LM. Quddusi, J. 1. ‘The’ instant (appeal has been preferred by the appellant/insurance company against the award dated 21.10.2003, passed by the Vtlth Additionat Motor Accident Claims Tribunai (FTC), Durg (for short ‘the Tribunai') in claim case No. 51/02, awarding Rs. 7,68,0961- to the ciaimants on account of loss of dependency, Rs. 5000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 2000l- for funerai expenses and Rs. 15,000l- for loss of love and affection, and thus total award Rs. 7,90,096l- along with interest @ 9 percent per annum. Brief facts of the case are that, Yashwant Rao Latare (since deceased) was an employee of Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board. On 18.11.1999, at about 9 PM, the Truck bearing registration No. OPT-2800, by which the deceased along with other co—workers had gone to village Malaida, Distt. 9A Rajnandgaon for line checking, the said Truck stuck in and while trying to back the said Truck out from the pit, the deceased, who was showing light from back side of the said Truck, was crushed, due to which he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. 3. The ciaimants i.e. unfortunate widow and children of the deceased preferred an application before the Tribunal under Section ‘166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,50,000/- for the death of their bread- earner in the said accident. 4. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, the material available on the record, and submissions of the parties, awarded a total sum of Rs. 7,90,096I- as compensation in favour of the claimants along with interest @ 9 percent per annum. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company has submitted that the death was not caused due to unintentional accident but was caused due to intentional murder, and as such, the insurance company is not liable to ' pay compensation to the claimants. Further, that the amount of compensation has not been calcuiated properly by the concemed Tribunal and the same is excessive. 6. We have perused the evidence availabie on record and award impugned. a 7. lt was found that though, the allegations were leveled with regard to intentional murder, but the same could not be proved U11 V} by the appellant/insurance company anE‘ait was only negligence n. to back the same out, the deceased was standing behind the Truck, all of sudden, the Truck came out from the mud and the accident took piace due to negligence on the part of the Driver. According to Postmortem report, there were 7 ante mortem injuries and the age of the deceased was shown as 45 years , and the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 12. 8. In case of Saria .Verma (Smt) And Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anather’ a chart has been given according to which multiplier of 13 is applicable in the present case as the deceased was aged about 45 years, but the Tribunal concemed has applied the multiplier of 12. Since this appeal has been flied by the insurance company, therefore, we cannot observe at this stage that the multiplier of 13 was to be applied by the Tribunal. However, We have no hesitation to say that 9. ln view of above, there is no force in the instant appeal, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. ’ However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order asto costs. A e: / e i 79 . Sdl- l.M.Quddusi Sahu multiplier of 12 is not excessive. Judge } a 12009 (6) scc 121 Sd/- N.1§. AGARWAL Judge on the pan of Driver of the said Truck, as th {\l’ruck in question stuck in mud in the ditch and some‘rpersons‘ l .‘ \. a