c ^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL FC1 N0. [•71 ^^^^H BlvisioR MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT.1988 Aj3PB_LANT (Insurer) .^' ^- y^SB^ ^a^A &^v :^ws::;yV^ ^ Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, through - It's \V^..,,j_^^Legal Manager, Reliance General -i"'" ^.fc^ Insurance Company Limited, 301- f^". 302 Corporate House, 3rd Floor, 169 RNT Marg, Opposite Jhabua Tower, Indore (M.P.), Branch Office at Raipur, Ravi Bhavan, 4 Floor, Jaistambh Chowk, G.E. Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). ^^. ^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS CLAIMANTS ^.' ^ DRIVER OWNER Vijay Kumar Gabail S/o Shri Chajnsingh, aged about 44 years Smt. Janki Bai Gabail W/o Vijay Kumar Gabail, aged about 39 years, Both Resident of Village Aurda, Tahsil & P.S. Kharsia, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) Hulesh Tandan S/o Shri Sukhdev Tandan, Aged about 21 years, Resident of Villal^e Navapara, Tahsil & P.S. Beliegarh, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 MX6H COURT OR CMH^mS^ARH 41 BSt.ASB« b^ISION BENCH: HON'BLE AAR I.M.QU&ESUS2 & HON'BLE MR.eUUtM MINHAJUO&XN. JJ. ^ Aopcltant RMDomtents M.A.rd Ne.in/ZOtl Rclkmce ©eneralInsurance Company Ltd. Vs Vijay Kumar @aba)»and others Prosenti Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advecate for the cppelkint. Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate for respondentNo.S. I.M. Quddusi. J; OI^ERfOron (16th Juna; 2011) 1. Challenge in the instauit c^»eal,filed by Ihe oppelkait Irwurance Company, is to the award dated 30.01.2010 pas«d by the teamed Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribwial, Sakti, District Janjglr-Oianya (C6) m Claim Case No.56/2008. 2. Facts of th®case, in nutshetl, are that the ctaimants have filed a claim petition under Sectien 166 of the Motor Vchicles Act, 1988 (for short the Acf) ctaimin9 compensation of Rs.56,55,77V" for the dealh of deeeased Modiendra Sir^h in -riie motor acddent which-took pkxc®on 13.4.2008 whcn the decaxsed was dashed by the offending motenycte bearing registmtwn number C604-CZ-0443 on account of rofih and rwgli9«it driving by its driver. The ckximants have ckximed compensatien on thc ground that they were dependent on the deceased and due to his <teath, 1+iey have aiffered toss of income. 3. Learned Tribunal, after t(akin9 note of the evktence available on record, held that Ihe ctaimants are entitted for compensation and acwrdingly awarded a sum of Rs.4,35,000/- os compenaation. Interest at lt»nate of 6% per annum was awwu-ded from the date of the claim. The Tribunal hca further directed that in case th»amount of com|^Baiaation is not pafel within stipulated time, then 9% p.a. interest ^iall be poyabte on the amount of compensatton. The liability to pay compensation has been fastened en the appellant-Insurance Company. » ^ 4. Learned counsel for the aiqaeltant-Insuna'ice Compflny has submitfred -Niat ^ firstly the Claims Tribunal has wror^ly rejechad the Gppliccrt'ion of appellant-Insuronce Company filed uncter Scction 170 of th» Act and thereafter without following Ihe kuw laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Courfr in ifie matters of U.P. Stata Road Trampopt Corporutlon A othirs Vs, Trllok Chawlro and Othen reported OT (1996) 4 SCC 362 & Srn^i ^wwo (Smt.) arMt othwv -w- DelhiTfwmpwi' Copfmvtioit fmel asoliwr reported in ^009) 6 SCC J^J, which are laws of land, fixed the compensation. Therefore, the quantum partr of tte impugiied award is lifld)te to be interfered with by this Court, 5. On the other hand, teanwd coynsel for 1+ie responctent No.l A 2 has supported Ihe impugned award, . 6. We have heard teamed counsel for the partics flutd perused 1+ie records of the Tribunal as also the Impygned award. 7. So far as the rejection of cypljcation undar S^stion 170 of the Act te con<»med, perusal of Ihe record ^iows tha'l- though thc chniver and the owner of offending vehjcte oppeared in the witncss box but they did not prefer to examine/cross-examine witnesses on •rtie question of income of Ihe deceased and therefore,we feel Ifiat application filed under Section 170 of the Act. 1988 should have been alloweid by 1+ie Claims Tribunal. 8. So far- as ihe quantum is concemed, in 1+ie matter of Sarta Vepma (supna) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has hetd that to arrive at the contribution to the dependants, if the deceased 'is a bachelor*. 80% deduction towards his personat expenditure diould be made from his income, as it js asaimcd that a bachelor would tend to spend more on him oa self-mainfrenance, untess the deceased was haviri9 kxrge number of younger non-eamir^ sisters. Furthcr, fhe claimants are parents of the deteased and therefore niultiplier shoyld have been cpplied considering average ogs of 1*ie parents of the deceased. However, the Claims Tribunal has not done ao in Ihe instant matter cnd therefore, we are inclined to interfere with the jquantum part- ef the flward as the laws of tend have not been followed by the Glaims Tribwial whtte - deciding the claim petition. ^~ ^."^si^" 1.. 9. Jhus, if we cteduct 50% from thc armual uicome of the deccoised i.e. Rs.36,000/- p.a. and Ther'eafter apply multtplier of i4 to it, the »otalloss of dependency would come to Ks.2,52,000/- (36000-SO%xt4)., Besides this, as 1+ie claimants have lost a young boy agedabout 20-22 years,theref®re, •they are also entitted to get Rs.i0,000/- eadi t<wnrds to«s of bv®<& affection, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estnte end Rs.9>OOQ/-' fop funaral expenses. Expenees hiairred in the treatnient of thc dececESttd would also be payable i.®.Ks.21,500/-. Thus, the ctainumts are entitled for a sum of Rs.3,W,SOO/- as compensation in all. 10. Furl+ier, we feel that the penal interest imposed by the Tribunat @ 9% is not proper and the same deserves to be «tasidc m view of the kiw toid down by Ihe Hon'bte Supreme Court in the mothsr of National Itmrttnca Company Ltd. Vs. IC^hav Bahadur and oth»r«fported in^004) 2 SCC 370 wherein Ihe Hon'bte Supreme Court has held thot direction in Kie award for retrospective enhancement of hiteanest for defautt in payment of the compensation to9ether with interest paysobte thereon virhially amounts to imposition of penalty whidi isnotstatutorjlyenviso^dondpitescrabecl. 11. In the result, the appeat is altowed in parf, Ihe impugned award is modify to the extent that now the ctainwnts shatl bc entitled for Rs.3,08,SOO/- as compensation in ptace of Rs.4,35,000/-. They shall also be entitted for simpte interest®6% p.a. on the awarded amount from the dat®of filin9 of application tttl actiml payment is mada. Nreetion of the Claims Tnbunal regardingpoyment of interest @ 9% in cose the amount of compensation is not paid within th®stipulated period, is hereby set aside. Rests of th® conditions imposed by the Ctaims Tribunai adiall remain intact. Howevej*, whatever amount has becn dqaosited by itie dppellant-Insuronoe Conyany ^iall be adjusted towards the amount of compensation as fixed by this Court-. 12. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above^JNIo wder as to costs. Sd/- Dr. I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge ^ ^