l;i^ ^.m.^. HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLESHRI RAJEEVGUPTA,C.J.& HON'BLESHRIRANGNATHCHANDRAKAR,J. Appellant: Non-Applicant No.2. Respbndents Claimants LA. (Cy.No.1550of2009 National lnsurance|CompanyUmited throughtheDJvisJonalManager,G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS T Gayatri Bai, aged about 20 years, W/o. Dhaniram. 2 Banshilal, aged about 48 years, S/o. Jethuram Shande, (Father of the deceased) and Father-in-law of Smt. Gayatri Bai. Both are R/o. C/o. ShriRekhlal Baghel, IVIanu Cycle Store, Baikunth Dham, Ward No.22, Bhilai, Thana - Chhawni, Power House, Bhilai, DistrictDurg(CG). Claimants 3. Praksh Ram Babu, S/o. Ram Babu Jaiswal, R/o. Tekanaka, Ankush Plazan Building, Kamthi Road, Nagpur(MH). i Non-ADDlicantNo.3 Misc. Appeal U/S. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. b. Present:ShriU.N,S.Deq,|earnedcpunselfortheappellant. ORDER ^th (26m February,2010) IH-1- -<"^-—=;—-——- I^Mi The fpllowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. By allowing IA Nos.2 & 3 of 2009, the documents filed along with these applications are taken pn recprd. 2) Shri UNS Deo, learned counsel for the appellant is heard onlA No.1/2009, an application forcondonation of the delay in filing the appeai. 3) On due consideration of the submissions of tearned counsel for the appellant and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellant / insurance Company has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 4) IA No.1/2009,therefore, is allowed and the delay of two days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 5) Shri UNS Deo, learned counsel for the appellant is heard onadmission. 6) This is insurer's appeal against the impugned award dated 24.11.2008, passed by the 7th Additional MotorAccident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Clajm Case No.83 of 2007, whereby the Tribunal hasawarded asum of Rs.3,59,568/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filjng of the claim petitjon till the date of actual payment. 7) The claimants, unfortunate widow and father of deceased Dhaniram elaimed compensation of Rs.4,97,000/- byfiling aclaim petition under Section 163-Aof the MotorVehicles Act, for his ^-\ Jl .y 11.. ^ death in the motoraccidenton 01.10.2007, when Trailorin which the deceased was travelling as co-driver was dashed by the offending vehicle Truck, bearing registration No.CG 04/J 0299, resulting in his instantaneous death on thespot itself. 8) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Dhaniram died on accountof the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 01.10.2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicje Truck; as the offending vehicle Truck on the date oftheaccident was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 9) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.2,500/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.1,667/- per month and Rs.20,004/- per annum.By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.20,004/- with themultiplierof17,the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,40,068/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.19,500/- under other permissible heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,59,568/- as compensation along with interest 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 10)^ Shri UNS Deo, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the driver of the Truck was solely responsible for the accident, whereas it was a case of contributory negligence; the claim petitjon was liable to be dismissed for non-impleadment of the owner and insurer of the Trailor in which the deceased was travelling; in assessingthe income of the deceased at 2,5007- per month without anyevidence in that behalf; in selecting the higher multiplier of 17; and in awarding excessive compensation of Rs.3,59,568/-. 11) So far as the submission about contributory negligence is concerned, it deserves an outright rejection as admittedly, the deceased was not driving the Trailor and as such, so far he is concerned.jt would be a case of composite negligence and not contributory negligence. In a case ofcomposite negligence, the option is with the claimants to ciaim amount of compensation from anyoTthe parties who contributed to the accident. 12) So far as the non-impleadment of the owner arid insurer of the Trailor is concemed, in a case of composite negligence as the option is with the claimants to claim compensation from any of the parties who contributed to the accident, mere non-impleadment of the other party can never be fatal to the claim. 13) The assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.2,500/- per month cannot be found fault with GDnsidering that deceased Dhaniram was working asco-driver on the Trailor. It is a matter of common knowledge that a driver in the year of accident i.e. 2007 could have easily earned Rs.2,500-3,000/- permonth. 14) The multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribuna! also cannot be found fault with in vjew of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein muttiplier of 17 has been prescribed for the age group between 26-30 years. 15) That apart, considering the nature of the occupation of the deceased; the fact that widow of the deceased is one of the claimants; and she is aged about 20 years only, the compensation of Rs.3,59,568/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot betermedas 'excessive'. 16) We, therefore, donot find any scope for interference inthis appeal filed by the insurer ofthe offending vehicle. 17) The appeaj, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is herebydismissedsummarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice subbu Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge