IN THE HON'BLE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.fQNo.^'^b OF 2008 fAPPEAL VALUEDAT Rs. 10.20.000 /-) OJVisiOfl BQnnh APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 APPELLANT m- Applicant ^No. 3) ^tJnited India Insurance Company Limited., Through: Its Divisional Manager, Divisional-Office, Krishna Complex, Ist floor, Kuchery Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil aad District-Raipur (C.G.). Versus RESPONDENTS 1, /fAPPLICANT N0.1) / (APPLICANT N0.2) 2, (APPLICANT N0.3) (APPLICANT N0.4) (APPLICANT N0.5) ^- 6, (APPLICANT N0.6) ^.^'^ ^""^^ Y^C Smt. Mumtaj Begum, aged about 38 years, Wd/o-Late Mohd. Altaf Changal Asraii, Ku. Nikhat Fatima, D/0- Late Mohd. Altaf Changal Asrafi,aged about-lSyears, Sana Fatima, D/0- Late Mohd. Altaf Changal Asrafi,aged about- 16years, Mohd. Asraf, S/0- Late Mohd. Altaf Changal Asrafi,aged about- 12years, Abdul Jabbar S/O-Late Mohd. Hussain, aged-62 years, Smt. Amina Begum, W/0-Abdul Jabbar, aged-60 years, Respondent No. 3 & 4 are Minor Through: Their Mother Smt. Mwntaj Begum (Res. No.l). All are R/o-Fauvara Chowk, ^ (NON-APPLICANT N0.1) ^' :7. (NON APPLICANT N0.2) 8. Bairran Bazar, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) Pali Shetty @ Hari Babu Singh, S/0-Saumyappa, aged about-35 years, R/o-Muyasu Ward no.IO, Salur, P.S.-Salur, Distt.- Vijaynagaram (AP)(Driver). G. Madhav Rao, S/0-G.Suri Narayan Rao, R/0-Salur, P.S. Salur, Distt.- Vijaynagaram (AP) ( owner of the Truck) h ^"""'. . \ ^33^ ^^^'^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M. Quddusi and Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mlshra Appellant IVIiscellaneous Appeal (C.) No.776 of 2008 United India Insurance Company Limited versus Respondents Smt. Mumtaj Begumand others Present: Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for the appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu, counsel for respondents No.1 to 6. Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 1 73 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ORAL ORDER (F?assed on 3rd January, 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi. J.: Heard. 2. This appeal has been filed by the insurance company challenging the award dated 14-3-2008 passed by the 12th Additional Motor Accidents CIaims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Raipur in Claim Case No.1'08/2007. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on the date of accident, i.e., 13-12-2006, at about 8:15 P.M., one Mohd. Altaf Changal Asarfi was coming to Raipur on his motor cycle bearing registration No.CG 04 C 9785 driving it slowly. As soon as he reached ahead Mohan Dhaba near Chhote Urla, truck bearing registration No.AP 30 T/9708, which was coming from Raipur and was being driven on wrong side rashly and negligently, dashed the motor cycle. The deceased, who was :':a°T.r 'l. ^ j driving the motor cycle, suffered serious injuries oh his person in the accident. He died during treatment in the hospital. The claimants preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation ofRs.14,20,000/-. 4 . The Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 10,20,0007- in favour of the claimants holding liability on the driver, owner and insurer of the truck to pay the compensation jointly and severally. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company has raised two contentions. The first contention is that there was contributory negligence, which has not been considered by the Claims Tribunal. The second contention is that the amount of compensation has not been assessed properly due to wrong application ofthe multiplier. 6. We have perused the record of the Claims Tribunal, which shows that the deceased was driving motor cycle on his side but the truck driver after crossing the road from his side had gone towards wrong side and collided with the motor cycle to the situation that its half body remained out of the road tov/ards its extreme right side and some part of the body remained towards the sky. In such a situation, it cannot be said that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, the driver of the motor cycle. 7. .With regard to the assessment of the income, the record shows that the deceased was filing income tax returns and the last /^ .^^^^' \ ^/f\^\ K ^•i •.—••;,^ 3 income tax return filed by him is dated 19-6'-2006. The date of accident is 13-12-2006. In the last return, he had shown his income as Rs.1,20,200/-. The Claims Tribunal has taken his income as only Rs.1 Lakh per annum without considering any future prospects as in the earlier income tax return filed on 1-9-2005 he had shown his income as Rs.82,860/-, which was increased in the year earlier to his death. Further, there are six claimants. The deduction towards personal expenses has been made as 1/3rd but the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 has observed in paragraph 30 of the judgment that where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, the deduction for personal expenses should be 1/4 . Besides this, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, total Rs.5,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the parents and three children of the deceased, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the widow of the deceased, which comes to Rs.20,000/- only. 8. Since, there is no cross-objection filed by the claimants, we do not consider it fit for enhancement of the amount of compensation. However, since there is no force in this appeal, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gopal