•» ^ ] c-f-P IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. ( C l No. n>!^-' /2010 sr&^ws Ba^sfe yiy'i;iu"'""" APPELLANT Non-Applicaat no.2, (Owner) ^ Vishwanath S/o Shivbalak Singh, by caste- Khairwar, R/o Village- Mamia, Bajnapara, P.S. ^ t7"-^' ?iuv*~'' BasantPur' Tahsil- Pal, Distt. 4^*yy Surguja (C.G.). ^•^!^?__.__'~^"""~" ?»^T ...-•"""" VERSUS ft.n RESPONDENTS : 1. Brijmohan ,S/o Jansai Khairwar, aged about 45 years, 2. Rukmani Devi, W/o Brijmohan, aged about 40 years, Both Khairwar by caste, R/o Village- Marma, Bajnapara, P.S. Basantpur, Tahsil Pal, Distt. Surguja (C.G.). . (Claimants) 3. Manoj Kumar @ Jagdev, S/o Bihari Ram, R/o Village and Post- Pratappur, Present Address:-Village Marma, Bajnapara, P.S. Basantpur, Tahsil Pal, Distt. Surguja (C.G.). . (Driver) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Manendragarh Road, Near Ambedkar Chowk, Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.) s -r CLAIM BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AWARD AMOUNT Rs.29,50,000/- Rs. 3,27,000/- VALUATION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL : Rs. 3,27,000/ MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT M.A.(C)No. 332 Of 2010 Vishwanath \fersus RESPONDENTS : Brijmohan & Othere APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT DB: Hon'ble Shri Justicp I.M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal. Present : Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, AdVocate forthe appellant Shri Sudhir Agrawat, Advocate for respondent No. 4. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 22.11.2010) Per : N.K. Agarwal, J. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/owner against the order dated 01.12.2009, passed by the Additlonal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Ramanujganj, Distt. Surguja (for short 'the Tribunat') in claim case No. 7/08, awarding Rs. 3,27,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants and as against the appellant exoneratfng the Jnsurance company from its liability to pay compensation. 2. Brief facts of the case according to the appellant are that, on 04.02.2008, Arjun Singh (since deceased) whfle going to home, near Bajnapara Dam, Tractor bearing registration No. CG-15- A-7095 owned by the appellant, being driven by appellant No. 3 and insured by the respondent No. 4, tumed turtle and he came under the said Tractor, as a result of which he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. RS!T -^"A" "^ tcj^^ "^ S ?fessS®"> VSSSSsA As against Rs. 29,50,000/- claimed by the parents of tM deceased, the Tribunal, awarded totalsum of Rs. 3,27,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants alongwith interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application till its payment, holding the appellant and the respondent N6. 3 jolntly and severally responsible for its payment to the claimants; exonerated the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation by holding that the deceased was gratuitous passenger in the Matador. Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that as per the case of the claimants, the deceased was pedestrian when he was dashed by the offending Tractor and was not gratuitous passenger. The evidence adduced in the case also proves the above fact. He further submits that undisputedly, no question has been asked to the witnesses by the respondent No. 4 whether or not the deceased was sitting in the Tractor as gratuitous passenger at the time of accident. Thus, the Tribunal has falten in error in holding the deceased sitting in the Tractor as a passenger. tt is further submitted by Shri Sinha that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is shocking on higher side which deserves to be suitably reduced. On the other hand, Shri Sudhir Agrawal, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4/insurance eompany, supported the award and would submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated •""--• '^ sSSh 1 s-s""~f3/ aw.saar" the insurance company from its liability and the award deserves to be upheld. 6. We have heard the counsel appearing for the parties, perused the order impugned and records of court below. 7. The factum of accident resulting in to cteafh of deceased is not in dispute. The .only question Talls for determinatlon of this court is whether the deceased was sitting in the Tractor as gratuitous passenger or was pedestrian at the time of accident. 8. As per clalm petition, the deceased was pedestrian. Brijmohan (FW-1) has deposed that deceased was pedestrian and was going to home when he met with an accident with offending Tractor resulting in hls death. Nothing has been suggested to him by the insurance company that he was not pedestrian but was sitting in the Tractor as a gratuitous passenger. There is no material in the record to suggest that the deceased was sitting in the Tractor as gratuitous passenger. 9. In such situation, in our opinion, the Tribunal has fallen in error in holding the deceased as a gratuitous passenger in the said Tractor. Legal evidence adduced and the material placed in the case suggests that deceased was a pedestrian when he met with an aceident with the offending Tractor. 10. Now eoming to the second question regardlng quantum of compensation, we have perused the award which shows that the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum; deducted 1/3rd of it (i.e. Rs. 12,(XX)/-) towards pereonal expenses of the /^\ @ ^K'^'vS S^Sg!S^fi!S S^9^^S^^^:^S'!^!VWW<''' \\ deceased; applted multiplier of 13, assess®!the amount of compensation towards loss of dependency at Rs. 3,12,000/- (24,000/- X 13 = 3,12,000/-) and further awarded Rs. 5,000/-for funeral expense and Rs. 10,000/- for loss of love and affection, and thus awarded total sum of Rs. 3,27,000/- in favour of the claimants: 11. The claimants are parents, thus, in view of Sarla Verma's case the standard deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased would be 50 percerrt and not 1/3 as deducted by the Tribunal. Therefore, we propose to re-compute the amount ofcompensation. 12. After deducting 50 percent towards personal expenses of the deceased, the yeariy toss of dependency would be Rs. 18,000/- per annum; looking to the age of the ctaimants, the appropriate multiplier would be 14 and by apptying the same, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2,52,000/-. By adding further amount of Rs. 35,000/- on other heads (Rs. 10,000/- for loss of estate, Rs. 10,000/- each for loss of love & affection and Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses) total award amount comes to Rs. 2,87,000/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled for Rs. 2,87,000/- as compensation in place of Rs. 3,27,0(X)/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 13. In view of above, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed in part. It is held that the claimants are entitled for Rs. 2,87,000/- in ptace of Rs. 3,27,000/- as compensation payable jointly and severally by the appellant, respondent No. 3 and /if.:^^ i issass-^ 1 14. respondent No. 4/insurance companyalong with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of applioation till payment is made. The respondent No. 4 is granted three months tlme to deposit the amount of compensation before the concerned Tribunal. No order asto Oosts. Sahu Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge