I.Stf- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Stnha Ss Hon'ble Shri R.L. Jhanwar, JJ. M.A. IC1 No. 1424 of 2007 Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Banshilal 8s others JUDGMENT rfU For consideration ^ Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.L. JHANWAR '3Q-°tTr''<-L . Sd/- R.L.Jhanwar Judge Post for Judgment: /Q /04/2009 Sd/- Suni] Kumar Sinha Judge ~ffln^3^a'B'-T^L3fc^ll.uulsJEI]'BiH!) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hpn'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon'ble Shri R.L. Jhanwar, JJ. M.A. (Cl No. 1424 of 2007 ^ APPELLANT INSURER Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., 2nd Floor, R.D.A. Building, Bajrang Market, Raipur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS Banshilal S/o Late Heeralal, Aged about 60 years Ku. Sita Prajapati, D/o Banshilal Prajapati, Aged about 21 years (Claimants No. 1 BB 2) Both are R/o Block Colony, P.S. & Tehsil - Aarang, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Rajesh Kumar @ Purani @ Naddu, Aged about 26 years, S/o Punit Ram Nirmalkar, R/o Village Ratokat P.S. & Tehsil- Aarang, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Driver) Mohd. Aarif S/o Mohammad Shamsuddin, R/o Hospital Ward Banshtal, Raipur Firm Sahil Traders Banshtal, Raipur (C.G.) (Owner) (Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. 1988( Aopearance: Mr. Raj Awasthy, Counsel for the'appellant. Mr. C.R. Sahu, Counsel for respondents No. 1 SE 2. Mr. R.K. Pali, Counsel for respondent No.4. None for respondent No.3. M.A.rciNo. 1424 of2007 e> JUDGMENT (/0.04.2009) Following judgment of the Court Sunil Kuinar Sinha, J. was delivered by (1) Being aggrieved with the award dated 12.9.2007, passed in Claim Case No. 27/2007 by the 12th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Raipur (C.G.), the insurer has filed this appeal. (2) The facts briefly stated are as under:- Deceased, Ku. Geeta, died in the motor accident on 25.5.2006 when she was dashed by the offending vehicle, Truck bearing registration No. C.G.-04-J-1244. Geeta was unmarried. She was aged about 23 years. Respondents No. 1 852 being the father and unmarried younger sister of deceased Geeta filed a Claim Petition, u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying compensation of Rs. 7,69,OOO/- on account of death of deceased Geeta in the motor accident. They pleaded that deceased Geeta was doing tailoring work and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. She was giving Rs.3,500/- per month to the respondents/claimants who were dependent on her. The owner, while admitting the factum of accident, denied that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The appellant/insurer also denied the claim inade by the claimants on acfcount of death of deceased Geeta. It further took the plea of contributoiy negligence as also the breach of policy conditions, and denied such income of the deceased, as pleaded by the claimants. The appellant/insurer was granted permission u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. ^ M.A.CCINo. 1424 of 2007 (3) Learned Claims Tribunal, recorded the finding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver; and the deceased died in the said accident. The Tribunal further held that the deceased was eaming Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting l/3Td towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the annual dependency of the claimants was worked out to Rs.24.000/-. The Tribunal used multiplier of 15 and the amount of compensation was worked out to RS.3,60,000/-. By adding a further sum of Rs.15,000/- under the other heads, the total amount of compensation was worked out to Rs.3,75,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum on the said amount of compensation, from the date of filing of the Claim Petition i.e. froinl4.12.2006 till its realization. The Insurance Company was held liable to pay the aforesaid amount of coinpensation to the claimants/respondents 1 8s 2. (4) Mr. Raj Awasthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that a high compensation has been awarded to the claimants as high income of the deceased has been assessed. He would further submit that respondent No.l was aged about 60 years and respondent No.2 was the unmarried sister aged about 21 years, hence, the Tribunal erred in law in using the multiplier of 15, therefore, the amount of compensation be suitably reduced. o (5) On the other hand, Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 & 2, opposed these arguments. While pressing the cross appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation, he argued that the Claims Tribunal ought to have accepted Rs.4,000/- as / iKil^S'i,^ ^t.- ^ M.A.fONo. 1424 of 2007 the monthly income of the deceased and it ought to have applied the multiplier of 18 looking to her age. (6) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Clairas Tribunal. (7) So far as argument relating to assessment of income of the deceased is concerned, it was pleaded by the claimants that the deceased was doing tailoring work and was eaming Rs.4,000/- per month and she was giving Rs.3,500/- per month to them. Horrilal Sahu (A.W.2) deposed that earlier the deceased was taking training of tailoring work in his shop and when she becaine trained tailor, she was engaged in his shop and was being paid Rs. 100-150/- per day. The Tribunal held that since the employer has deposed as above, therefore, the monthly income of the deceased can be assessed as Rs.3,000/-. We do not find any fault in such assessment made by the Tribunal and the argunients advanced in this regard cannot be accepted. -e (8) So far as using of multiplier of 15 is concerned, that deserves to be reconsidered. Admittedly, claimant No.l was the father of the deceased and he was aged about 60 years. Claimant No.2 was the younger sister of the deceased and she was aged about 21 years. Therefore, there was a possibility t.hat she would have been married in due course and she would not have been dependent on the deceased for ever or for a long period and in such situadon^ we are of the view, the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 10 in light of the dictum of the Apex Court in the matter of Ittunlcioal Corporation of Gteater Bombau -Vs- Laxmah lyer &, another, (2003) 8 SCC 731. / / K».-.-s-&^^"KSSwE%!S?a^8^^3&iu>i«i»"l"'iim M.A. (O No. 1424 of 2007 ; Therefore, we propose to re-compute the amount of compensation by using the multiplier of 10 and the arguments for using further higher multiplier cannot be accepted. (9) By applying the multiplier of 10 to the amount of annual dependency of Rs.24,000/-, assessed by the Claims Tribunal, the compensation is worked out to Rs.2,40,000/-. By awarding further suin of Rs.15,000/- under the other permissible heads, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.2,55,000/- which the respondents 1 & 2/claimants are entitled to receive on account of death of deceased Geeta in the motor accident. Respondents 1 & 2/claimants shall also be entitled to receive interest on the said amount of compensation @ 6% per annum froin the date of filing of the Claim Petition till its realization. (10) It is stated that as mentioned in the order dated 7.7.2008, the appellant/Insurance Coinpany has already deposited a sum of Rs.1,75,037/- on 17.12.2007. The appellant is granted two months tiine to deposit the balance amount with the concerning Claims Tribunal. (11) The appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed to the extent indicated above and the cross-objection filed by the respondents 1 & 2/claimants is dismissed. (12) There shall be no orders as to the cost. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge 6AI^»< s^. ^•v>e vatti