(p £^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTSGARHi M.A.tCI No.i&r/ Kgl T /2008 APP^LLANTS N^-APPLICANTS ^.^l'- ^^K^^^f ..^^:':^ ^Ts^^ ^ >-^::;...--"" [^%v ^^ "%• RESPONDENTS APPLICANTS ^L ^ ^2, 1. , STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, Through : Chief Medical Officer, District Hospital, Dantewada, Tahsil 85 District - South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) THE COLLECTOR, Dantewada, District South Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS SUNIL KUMAR JODH, S/o. Late Gulab Ray Jodh, Aged about 40 years, Caste- Darji VISHAL JODH, Shri Sunil Kumar Jodh, Aged about 18-1/2 years ^3- ^ ^- ^ ?^- SAGAR JODH, Shri Sunil Kumar Jodh, Aged about 12 years AKSHAY JODH, Shri Sunil Kumar Jodh, Aged about 10 years RAMCHANDRA KANGE, S/o. Shri Suraj Singh Kange, Aged about 35 years, Caste-Gond, R/o. R.E.S. Colony, Qtr. No. 36, Aanwrabhata, Tah. & District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) Respondents No. 2 to 4 are minor, through their father natural guardian Shri Sunil Kumar Jodh, S/o. Latfe Gulab Ray Jodh. Respondents No. 1 to 4 are residents of Block Colony, R.E.S. Qtr. No.-40, Dantewada, Tah. - Dantewada, District-South Bastar, Dantevvada (C.G.) &> ^r'"- MISCELLANBOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTQR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 AGASNST THE AWARD AND DECREE PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL, SOUTH BASTAR^ DANTEWADA (C.G.I IN CLAIM CASE N0^ 50708 ON 19/06/20Q8. ^y ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. (Q No. 1674 of 2008 Appellants State of Chhattisgarh & another Versus Respondents Sunil Kumar Jodh & others APPEAL UNDER SECJ'KW 173 OF THE^jOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate General for the appellants. Shri Keshav Dewangan, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 4. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 3rd day ofJanuary, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/State of Chhattisgarh on the question of quantum, against the impugned award dated 19.6.2008, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Bastar, Dantewada, in Claim Case No. 50/08, awarding a sum of Rs. 12,74,600/-. 2 . We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 4 and perused the lower Court record as well as the findings given in the impugned award. 3. Brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 19.4.2007 at about 9.30 a.m. Smt. Alka Jodh, who was working as Staff Nurse in the District Hospital, Dantewada, was going to her office on the motorcycle, bearing registration No. C.G. 18-B/5234, which was being driven by her son Vishal. At that time, near the District Hospital on the main road of weekly market, the Ambulance ~ Swaraj Mazda, -T:'^^ \^ I ^SI^ 1 \'^/ "'^tessa 6. ^ bearing registration No. C.G. 02/1601, owned by the State of Chhattisgarh, being driven by the non-applicant No.l (Ram Chandra Kange), in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle, as a result of the accident Smt. Alka Jodh died. The claimants, who are legal heirs of the deceased, filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 19,25,000/- under various heads. Learned Claims Tribunal, having regard to the facts and evidence on record held that the claimants are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,74,600/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and accordingly passed the impugned award. However, it has been directed that if the amount of award is not deposited within time, the amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the appellants raised contention that there was contributory negligence which was ignored by the Claims Tribunal. He has also contended that the quantum fixed by the Claims Tribunal is excessive and the moforcycle driver was not having the valid and effective driving licence. Shri Vinay Harit, learned Deputy Advocate General contended that since the driver of the motorcycle was not having the valid and effective driving licence, therefore, learned Claims Tribunal should have treated the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle. But after perusing the lower Court record we are of the opinion that this cannot be held that there was any contributory negligence by the driver of the motorcycle as the driver of the offending vehicle, owned by the State, came on the '<<-^^.'"%. --1^!-.-^ wrong side with great speed, being driven in rash and negligent manner and collided with the motorcycle, resulting in the accident and as there is no evidence that the motorcycle of the driver was on high speed. Holding of valid and effective driving licence by the driver of the motorcycle has no concern with the contributory negligence. 8. With regard to the quantum, it is not disputed that the deceased was a Staff Nurse in the District Hospital, Dantewada. Her pay slip is also available on record, therefore, her monthly income cannot be disputed. Learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income ofthe deceased as net Rs. 10,080/-, though the amount of G.P.F., G.I.S. and House Rent, deducted from the income of the deceased, were the deductions only during her servrice and therefore when she is no more there was no question of these deductions, hence these amounts of Rs. 770/- towards G.P.F., Rs. 180/- towards G.I.S. and Rs. 35/- towards H.R. should not have been deducted from her income. Anyhow, once the income has been assessed as Rs. 10,080/- the annual income calculated as Rs. l,20,960/-appears to be correct. The 1/3rd amount has been taken for personal and living expenses through there are four claimants but for all practical purpose we can consider only three dependents as the husband of the deceased was not a dependerit to her. After deducting l/3rd , the amount of yearly dependency comes to Rs. 80,640/-. The Tribunal has applied multiplier of 15 but according to the decision of the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another1 between the aged 40 to 45 years the muldplier of 14 (2009)6 SCC 121 'f^ ^^ .:;«—^- ^ should have been applied. Therefore, after applying the multiplier of 14 in the annual dependency of Rs. 80,640/- the amount of compensation towards loss of dependency comes to Rs. 11,28,960/-. 9 . Shri Harit has also submitted that since the amount of Group Insurance was already paid to the claimants such amount should have been deducted from the loss of dependency but we do not think it proper as the deceased was paying the monthly subscription for the Group Insurance Scheme. Any insurance policy for which the premium is paid separately by the deceased, such amount of insurance policy is paid to the legal heirs of the deceased and the same cannot be deducted from the amount of compensation, awarded under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, the Government has already paid an amouht of Rs. 25,000/- for funeral expenses of the deceased and therefore it was not proper on the part of the Claims Tribunal to grant funeral expenses (Rs. 5000/-) again. Besides this, having regard to the facts situation, we are of the opinion that towards loss of consortium to the husband an amount of Rs. 10,000/- only shoyld have been granted (instead of Rs.20,000/-) and towards loss of estate also Rs. 10,000/- should been granted (instead of Rs. 20,000/-). Similarly, for three children towards loss of love and affection Rs. 5000/- each should have been granted (instead of Rs. 20,000/-) but the Tribunal has awarded the amount in excess. Therefore, we held that the claimants are entitled towards above heads in the ratio indicated hereinabove, a total of which comes to Rs. 35,000/-. Accordingly, after adding Rs. 35,000/- into the amount of loss of dependency i.e. Rs. 11,28,960/-, the total amount comes to Rs. 11,63,960/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total amount of Rs. 11,63,960/- as compensation. 10. The Tribunal has wrongly imposed the penal interest at the rate of 8% per annum, which is not proper. This part of the award of the Claims Tribunal is set aside. The claimants would be entitled to simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its payment to the claimants. Rest of the conditions imposed by the Tribunal shall remain intact. 11. In view of the above, we allow this appeal in part and modify the impugned award dated 19.6.2008 to the above extent. No order as to costs. 12. The deposit which has already been made by the appellants shall be adjusted towards the amount of compensation. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge lakur