Coram : Hon APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS RESPONDENTS Driver Owner Insurer Aggearance: Shri D. N. Prajapati, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri Neeraj Pradhan, Company. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha 8a ’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava ‘J Misc. Appeal No. 335 of 2004 l. Bachhalal S/o Ranji aged about 49 years, Occupation service, SECL Charcha Colory, Kaushalaya Bai, W/o Bachhalal aged about 45 years, House wife, Both R/o Village Vivekanand Colony, Qtr. No.1241, Charcha Colory, RS. Baikunthpur District Koria (CG) Versus l. Chandru Nayak, S/o Shaban Nanak, aged 36 years, R/o Kota Colony, Amanaka, Raipur District— Raipur(CG) Kawaljeet Singh Valia, S / o Mahendra Singh Valia, Owner, R/o Raipur Tatibandh, Raipur District Raipur(CG) Branch Manager, Insurance Co. Ltd. Complex, Devendra Nagar Nagar, Raipur (CG) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT ACT 1988 Oriental Chanwla Road, Sai a counsel for respondent No.3/lnsurance J. ORAL- ORDER (26.11.2010) Following order of the N SUNIL KUMAR SINHA J Court was passed by compensation awarded in Claim Case No. 02/2003 by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District-Koriya vide award dated l6. 12.2003. . The appellants/claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Shyamlal, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of (in short “the Act of 1988”) Rs.23,20,000/— recorded the finding that it was not established by the evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The Tribunal, s therefore, resorted to the provision of Section 163 —A 0f the Act of 1988 and held the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of notional income. By deducting 1 /3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased the dependency of the appellants was Worked out to Rs 10 000/ per annum By applying multipher of 17 to the sald dependency of Rs.l0,000/—, the compensation was worked out to Rs.l,70,000/—. By adding further sum of Rs.2,000/~, on account of funeral expenses, total amount of compensation was worked out to Rs.l,72,000/-. From this amount, 50 per cent Was deducted towards the contributory negligence of the deceased. The Tribunal thus awarded a sum of Rs.86,000/- as compensation to the appellants for the death of deceased — Shyamlal in the motor accident on 9.12.2002. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment, . Shri D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel appearing for the appellants argued that the finding of the contributory negligence was not proper. He also argued that assessment of the income of the deceased was also not proper. . On the other hand, Shri Neeraj Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for respondent NOB/Insurance Company opposed these arguments and supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. .p We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Claim case. a . Ram Kumar alias Ramadhar (A.W.2) was examined by the appellants to prove the negligence. Ram Kurnar contended that Satyendra was driving the scooter and the deceased was pillion rider. The Tribunal -4- é9 has held that the above contention was not COrrect according to the first information report (EXP—2). In the first information report (EXP- 2), it has been clearly mentioned that in fact the deceased himself was driving the scooter. The copy of first information report has been filed by the appellants. In fact, the appellants have filed the FIR to prove the factum of the accident. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Premlata Shukla. 8n Ors. (2007 AIR SCW 3591), the Supreme Court, in context of a claim case, held that “the FIR brought on record for the purpose of proving motor accident, could be relied upon to fix the liability of driver of the offending vehicle as well. Once part of contents of a document is admitted in evidencefparty bringing the same on record cannot be permitted to contend that the other contents contained in the rest part thereof had not been proved”. In the present case also, the FIR was filed by the appellants/claimants for proving the factum of accident. Therefore, the claimants cannot be allowed to deny the contents of the FIR for the purpose of fixing the liability of the driver of the vehicle. It is on this count, the Tribunal did not rely on the testimony of Ram Kumar (A.W.2) and recorded a finding that the deceased himself was driving the scooter at the time of the accident. The Tribunal, further held that since the deceased was trying to overtake the running truck and he did not take proper caution, therefore, the deceased equally was responsible for the accident and the deceased has also contributed to the accident to the extent of 50 per cent. We do not find any infirmity in such finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is based on sufficient material on record. Thereforer we affirm the finding of contributory negligence. . So far as income of the deceaseduis concerned, we have held in many cases that since the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- was prescribed in @ the second Schedule prepared under Section 163 —A of the Act of 1988 in the year 1994, therefore, considering the rises of prices of essential commodities and cost of living in between the year 1994 to 2002, the notional income of Rs. 15,000/ - per annum can be taken as Rs.30,000/— per annum in the year 2002. Even if we take the income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/— per annum on the basis of notional income, the deduction would be 50 per cent, because the appellants are parents of the deceased. After deducting 50 per cent from Rs.30,000/—, the dependency would come to Rs.15,000/— per annum. Since the appellants/claimants are parents, therefore, the multiplier would not go beyond 10, in View of the judgment Qf the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman Iger and another{ (2003) 8 SCC 731}. By applying multiplier of 10 to the annual dependency of Rs.l5,000/-, the total amount would come to Rs:l,50,000/-. Fifty percent of Rs.1,50,000/— would therefore, come to Rs.75,000/-. Even ifwe add Rs.10,000/— under other permissible heads, the total amount of compensation would come to Rs.85,000/—. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.86,000/- to the appellants/claimants. Therefore, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation in this matter. . For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants. The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants, therefore, is liableé to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10. There shall be no orders as to the cost(s). ¥ ‘ h Sdl- Sd/— ‘Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge \ Praueen ‘ Judge l 1 .1\ ' h