^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) M.A. (C)No.?S~| of 2011 ^iaVISJO^i l^'j^yi^^ APPELLANT/ htOn-applicant no.3 VERSUS RESPONDENTS/ t-:1. Claimants L2- ^^ ^A^^ ^^^3- ^o.<A^~...-'"".ov ^ ^"'..^p /•••"' ^' -p?-^ -<<- ^Qe'~. ..<'< '^y^ ^Sf ,»v ^4. ^5. Non-applicants 6. 7. National Insurance Company Limited, through the Branch Manager, 13 Minu Complex, Main Road, Kosabadi, Korba, Tahsil & District-Korba (C.G.) Krishna Pr'asad, S/o Kunjram Dubey, aged about 70 years, Smt. Krishna Bai, W/o Krishna Prasad Dubey, aged about 65 years, Both R/o Netaji Chowk, Janjgir, Police Station & Tahsil-Janjgir, District-JanJgir- Champa (C.G.) Smt. Prabha Devi Pandey, D/o Krishna Prasad Dubey, aged about 37 years, R/o Netaji Chowk, Janjgir, at present Saraiset, Tahsil-Pandaria, District- Kawardha (C.G.) Smt. Santoshi Dubey, D/o Krishna Prasad Dubey, aged about 33 years, R/o Netaji Chowk, Janjgir, P.S.-Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Smt. Kalyani Tiwari, D/o Krishna Prasad Dubey, aged about 29 years, R/o Netaji Chowk, Janjgir, at present Dharamjaigarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.) Vijay Kumar, S/o Chandrashobha Dewangan, aged about 40 years, R/o Sivgni (Naila), Tahsil-Janjgir, District- JanJgir-Champa (C.G.) Rakesh Yadav, S/o Sheetal Yadav, aged about 24 years, R/o Sharda Chowk, Janjgir, P.S. & Tahsil-Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) CLAIIVI BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL : AWARD AMOUNT - : VALUATION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL : Rs. 23,00,000/- Rs. 4,82,000 /- Rs; 4,82,000/- i-3 MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S. 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT,1988 B- .9 ,\^ HIGH COURT OFLCHHATnSGAKH^BILASPXJR DB: Hoa'ble I. M. QUDDUSI & Hon'ble G. MI?iHAJUDDIN, JJ APPSLLANT: RESPONDENTS: o.251/2011 National Insurance Coinuanv Ltd. Vs. Krishna Prasad and others ?- MISC. APPBAL UNDER 8BCTION^l73 OP THB MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.1988 Appearaace: -, Gautam. Khetrapal, coiuisel tbr the appeUaat. -, Raxijau Jaiswal, cozinsel for respondents 1 to 5. Mr. Rakesh Pandey, counsel for respondents 6 & 7. ORAL ORDBR (19.10.2011) Per I.M, QUDDUSLjJ, 1. This appeal has been filed by fhe InsuTance Company agamst fhe impugaed award dated 28. 10.2010 passed by fhe Principal Motor Accident Clamis Tribunal, Janjgir Champa, Chbattisgarh. in Clami Case No.37/2010. 2. Brief facts of fhe case as per tbe version of the claunants are ttiat on 05.02.2010 at about 8.00 p:m., deceased Ravi Prakash Dubey was going to Nelaji Chowk near Jagni Cclebration fJaujgir) on inain road. At that time one inotorcycle Platina bearing Regn. No.C.G.ll-BC/7910 wbich was being driven by non-applicaat no.2 Rakesh Yadav ia rash aad negligent inaniier dashed Ravi Prakash due to wbich he susteined grievous iajuries on fhe chest, legs aud ofher parts of the bod^ •^^ '^ -sa' <[ >,' and died. At the time of accident fhe deceased was uiunarried aged about 24 years, Iie was student of B.C.A. and was also eanune Rs. 10.000/- oer nionth bv workiua as S"pervisor under the control of a Civil Contractei. Besides fhis he was also eaniing Rs.5000/- per month by other works. The claunaats beiiig dependents/legal representatives have fited claim. petition uader Section 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for fhe award of a total coBipensation of Rs.23 lakhs on various heads iacluding expenses incurred on treatment. 3. The learaed clamis Tribuiial baving reRard to the facts situation held fhat fb.c death of deceased was due to fhe accident caused by Motor Cycle bearing Regn. No. C.G. 11- BC/7910 when it was being driven by non-applicaat no.2 Rakesb. Yadav in a rash aad negligent inaniier; at the time of accideat, ftie driver was haviag vaMd aud effective driving licence; theie was no breach. of conditions of the Insuraace Policv and tb.e claimaats are entifled to receive a total coinpensation of Rs.4,82,000/- fi-om non-applicants 1, 2 & 3 joinfly and severaUy. 4. We have heard leamed counsel for the parties and have also yins through the records of the Tribunal. S. It has coine on recoid that fhe Driver of the inotorcycle No.C.G. ll-BC/7910 was having a learuer's licence on fhe date of accident but the owner of the motorcycle was pitlion rider who was ha.vin.g valid and effective drivuig Ucence. Therefore, it catmot be said that there was violation of any provision/rule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or Gentral Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. Howeyer, we have seen fhat the application. under Section 170 of the Motor Vebicles Act was wiongly rejected as u^ 6. 7. the owner of fhe vehicle has not pleaded contributoiy negl^ence, but oiily to save fheniselves they have stated that fhe driver of the aUeged offending vehicle was not driviaj negUgently rafher it was the total negUgence of fhe deceased. However, the Tribunal has not fi-amed anv issue reearding; contributoiy negUgence while in fact; fhere was head on coUision between the two inotorcycles which is clear Irom. fhe evidence of Ainritlal. The clamiaats have examiaed Ainritlal as A.W.3 who has stated iu his cross examiaation fhat deceased was ridias the inotorcycle wtuch raet with accident by the niotorcycle of Rakesh Yadav (respondent no.7). In paragraph 5 of his cross examination this witaess has further stated that there was head on coUision between fhe two niotorcycles aad due to that reason, the accident took place. At this stage, learaed counsel for the clamiaats/respondcnts 1 to 5 hereia concedes that fhis Covxt may reduce 50% towards contributoiy negUgence aad hence, we are incluied to dispose of ttds appeal ia fhose tenns. The Tribunal has r^htly assessed the incoine of the deceased as Rs. 10.000/- per month and Rs.1,20,000/- per annum. He was bachelor aud therefore,- 50% is Uable to be deducted towards personal aud liviug expenses from his aimual iucome; After deduction, fhe annual loss of dependency coines to Rs.60,000/- per aunuia. Since the deceased was bachelor and fhe parents being claunaD.ts, the age of the parents are to be taken iuto consideration. The average age of fhe parents is above 65 years. Tberefore, inultipUer 5 would be'appUcabIe as laid down bv Hon'ble fhe Apex Coiul ia Sarla Verma fSmt.) - :'fs'. \A.K r< vs- Delhl Tremsport Corporatton cuui aswther rcported tn (2009) 6 SCC 121 ftable gtocn in Pcira 40^. Thus the total loss of dependency would corae to Rs.3 lakhs (60000 x 5). Besides ttus fhe claim.ants are also entifled to get Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate aad Rs.SOOO/- for funeral expenses. Thus, the total amount of compensation coines to Rs.3,15,000/-, 50% of fb.e same comes to Rs.1,57,500/-. Therefore, the aiaount of coinpensation is reduced to Rs.1,57,500/- which the appellaut Insurauce Coiupany sfaaU directly pay to the claunauts i.e., parents ofthe deceased. The parents will also be entifled to get sunple iaterest @ 6% per anniuii thereon fipom. the date of filmg of the claita petition tiU its payment is m.ade. No other claunaats except fhe parents would be entifled to get aay amoiuit of coinpensation as they were not dependiug upon the deceased or the parents. The amount wliich is already iu deposit shall be adjusted towards fhe acaount of coinpensation aud ttie iuterest. In ftie result, ftie appeal is allowed ia part. The impugned award dated 28.10.2010 is uiodified i& fhe above terms. No order as to cost. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G.Minhajuddin Judge Rao