IN THE HJGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH MISELLANEOUS APPEAL (C) N0. - rb0'^' OF 2010^ (MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988) APPELLANTS 01. ^a" ^1* o^ '^-[&-y Gulab Singh, S/o Shri Kartikram Singh, aged about 18 years, Caste - Satnami, R/o H.NO. -M-550, Ompur,Rajgamaar, Tahsil & District - Korba (C.G.) (Non-applicant No. 1) (Driver of vehicle Motor Cycle Bajaj Discover bearing registrationNo. C.G. 12 G/9034) Kartikram, S/o Chamruram, Caste - Satnami, R/o H. No. M-550, Ompur Colony, Rajgamaar, Tahsil & District-Korba (C.G.) (Non-applicant No. 2) (Registered owner ofvehicle Motor Cycle Bajaj Discover bearing registrationNo. C.G. 12 G/9034) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^- Smt. Pushpa Bareth, W/o Late. Raghunath Bareth, aged about 21 years, Caste - Dhobi, R/o H. No. M-409, Ompur, Rajgamaar, Tahsil & District- Korba (C.G.). ^- j^. Smt. Kaushlya Devi Bareth, W/o Late. Chhotelal Bareth, aged about 50 years, Caste - Dhobi, R/o H. No. M-409, Ompur, Rajgamaar, Tahsil & District- Korba (C.G.). }3. Jagnath Bareth, S/o Late. Chtiotelal Bareth, aged about 24 years, Caste - Dhobi, R/o H. No. M-409, Ompur, Rajgamaar, Tahsil & District- Korba (C.G.). (Applicant/Claimants) <^-^34. The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Through Regional Office - Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhansabha, Pandri, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) (Non-applicdnt No. 3) . (Insurer of vehicle Motor Cycle Bajaj Discover bearing registrationNo.C.G. 120/9034) Appeal Value at - Rs. 437,0007- MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 -i.F o HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR.I.M.QUK»USI& HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUEXDIN. JJ. Aopellant Claimant Respondents Non-clannants Appellants Respondents M.A. (c1 No.481/2010 Gulab Singh Vs Smt. Pushja Bareth and others & M.A. fcl No.207/2010 Gulab Singh and anbther Vs Smt. Pushpa Bareth and others Present: Mr. Shivendu Pandya, counsel for the appellants. Mr. P.K. Patel, counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in MAC No.207/10 and respondent No.1 in MAC No.481/10. Mr. Tarun Dadsena, counsel for respondent No.2 in MAC No.481/10. Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Mrs. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for respondent No.3 in MAC No.481/10. Mr. SS Rajput with Ms. Renu Singh, counsel for re^ondent No.4 in MAC No.207/10. ORDER (Oran (15th September, 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi. J; 01. Both these appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehleles Ad have been filed by the appellants/driver and owner against the common award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (in short "the Tribunal") dated 3ri December, 2009 passed in Claim Case Nos.298/07 & 347/2X)7, whereby the claim petition of appetlant Gulab Singh has been dismissed by the Tribunal. 2. Since both these appeals arise of the same accident, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. Brief facts of the case, as per averments made in the Claim Case No.347/07, are that on 31.12.2006 at about 9 pm the appellant Gulab Singh was going to his home at Ompur from Rajgamar by motorcycle Bajaj Discover bearing registration No. CG 12G/0}34. At -t <T^. AO fv -; that time, near DM Colony, one Raghunath Dhobi came there by driving motorcycle Victor bearing registration No, CG-12G/1252 rashly and n^ligently and dashed the motorcyde of Gulab Sir^h. On account of the sakl accident, Gulab Singh sustained grievous ir^uries over his legs, hands, eyes, lips, nose, head and other parts of the body. 1-lis eyes and head were operated upon in Apolto Hospltal, Bilaspur. Appellant Gulab Singh was working a$ Salesman in National Medical Stores, Korba and was getting Rs.5,0(X)/- per month. On account of the accident, he is not able to see from his teft eye. He has incurred Rs.2,50,000/- on his treatment and in future also he is required to undergo further trea&nent. Therefore, appellant Gulab Singh ffled a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act, 1988") for a total compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- under various heads. On the other hand, as per averments made in Claim Case No.298/07 filed by legal heirs of deceased Raghunath Bareth, who are respondents No.1 to 3 in MAC No.207/10 herein, on 31.12.2006 Raghunath Bareth was going to TDM Colony, Rajgamar from Ompur Colony by driving motorcycle TVS bearing registration No. CG12K/1252. At that time. Gulab Singh by driving motorcycle Bajaj Discover bearing registration No. CG 12G/9034 rashly and negligenUy dashed the motorcycle of Raghunath Bareth, as a result of which Raghunath Bareth, sustained grievous injuri^and succumbed to the same. Report of the said accident was lodged at Police Station - Rajgamar, Korba. Raghunath Bareth, aged about 28 years, was wa'king as Cable Operator and was getting Rs.4,500/- per month by working in Prity Electronics, Ompur, Rajgamar. Therefore, the legal heirs of deceased Raghunath Bareth i.e. widow, mother and brother of the deceased, filed a claim petttlon under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 for a total compensation of Rs.32,00,000/- under various heads. 05. However, learned Tribunal, after close scrutiny of the evidence, oral and documentary, adduced by the parties, dismissed the claim petition of appellant-Gulab Singh and allowed the claim petition fded on behalf of legal heirs of deceased Re^hunath Bareth, fastening liability to pay compensation of Rs.4,57,000/- upon the appellants herein to the legal heirs ofdeceased Raghunath Bareth, 'fr t^^^KS^ ifilS iSl iS ^^" Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the Lower Court Record (LCR) as also the impugned award. The eyewitness of the accident namely Sudharshan Lal Karsh has categorically stated that on the date of accident, tie was going on foot from Ompur to DM Colony. At that time at about 9.CK) pm, Gulab Singh by driving the motorcycle No. CG12G/WQ4 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of Raghunath Bareth. He rushed to help Raghunath Bareth and saw that Raghunath Bareth had sustained injuries over his head and face and blood was oozing from his mouth. Report of the accident was lodged immediately after the accident against Gulab Singh at Police Station - Rajgamar. On the other hand, Gulab Singh, in para-4 of his cross-examination, has admitted that he lodged the report after 25 days of the accident on the advice of his family members and his counsel. He has also admitted in para-5 of his cross-examination that he had knowledge about the report todged against him by the family members of the deceased and only thereafter, he lodged the report and made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Korba. From perusal of the FIR (Ex.P/1) lodged by Gulab Singh, it is evident that the said report has been todged after more than a period of six months of the accident. 08. Learned claims Tribunal after considering the material availabte on record, has held that Gulab Singh/claimant was himself negligent in driving the motorcycle and responsible for the death of Raghunath Bareth and therefore, dismissed his claim petition. We find no illegality or infirmity in the findings arrived at by the claims Tribunal wtth regard to negligence of appellant Gulab Singh and as such, the impugned award deserves to be afflrmed to this extent and the instant appeal i.e. MAC No.481/10 preferred on behalf of appellant Gulab Singh for grant of compensation is liable to be dismissed. 09. So far as MAC No.207/10, preferred by the appellants, is concerned, the claims Tribunal has assessed age of the deceased as 28 years, on the basis of postmortem report and his monthly income as 3,000/- i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3f<i toward personal and living expenses, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.24,000/- perannum. Thus, following the principles of Isnw laid down rsl -.-^- ^-^^ 4- •.!^ ^ ^^ by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Sarfa Verma ^mt) Vs. Delhi Transport Corporaffon and snottier, re^wted in fZOOSJI ®SCG 121, the multiplier of 17 should have been applied instead of 18. Therefore, after applying multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,08,000/-. Besides this, the widow of the deceased is entitled to Rs.5,0(X)/- towards loss of consortium. The claimants wouid atso te entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards Tuneral e)ff)enses. Thus, after adding this amount of Rs.15.000/-, the total compensation comes to Rs.4,23,000/-, which the claimants are entitled to receive from the appellants with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of.filing of claim petition till its payment is made. t2.lntheresult: > MAC No.481/10 preferred by appetlant Gulab Smgh for grant of compensation is hereby dismissed. > MAC No.207/10 preferred by the appellants Gulab Singh & Kartikram, is allowed in part and the impugned award is modifted to the extent that the claimants shall be entitled to receive a total compensatibn of Rs.4,23,000/-, instead of Rs.4,57,000/-, from the appellants along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of claim petition till its realizatlon. The appellants shall be entitled to have refynd of the excess ^moyrrtpaid^the claimants. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G- ^^ ?e f^ i^^^^^*-