;N THE HI6H COURT JUbICATURE AT BILASPUR _J^)_ Misc. Appeal [C] No. U] OF APPELLANT INSURER '^The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager', 16, R.SS. Market, Power House, Bhilai, District Durg. Versus RESPONDENTS (_M. Puthri Bai ©Puni Bai Thakur, aged CLAIMANTS ' , , ,„ . ., years, 5ingh Thakur. Ramesh Kumar Thakur, aged about 21 years, S/o late Latel Singh Thakur. Rambati Thakur, aged about 61 years, .:•••"f^^''~cP^' wife of late Bharat Thakur. [^.^> ^-{"•^'^' ^y:.^ Ay Y ^B- K , Driver of the Truck ^t. No. C.G.07-Z.C- 1175 .^^ Owner of the Truck 5. No. C.6.07-ZC- 1175 the above respondents No.l to 3 are.the residents of Village Devar Jhal, Police Station Nandini, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, C.6. Bharatlal Sahu, S/o Shri Khorbahara RamSahu, resident of village Nandini Khundni, P.S. Nandini, Tahsil Dhamdha, Oistrict Durg (C.6.) Deepak Kumar t>ewangan, S/o Dhanuk Ram Dewangan, r-esident of Devar Jhal, Nandini Mines, P;S. Nandini, Tah. Dhamdha, Bhilai, bistrict burg (C.G.) N-^ APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ^CT AGAINST THE .v^__..^- -.. _..- . ../'... AWARt)/ORbER bATEb 25.09.2007 PASSEb BY SHRI A.K.&HRUV. THE 11TH ADbITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ~^ , ^ (F.T.C.) bURG. (C.6.1 IN C.C.N0.51/07 f-w» ii'BSB^Sn HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M.A, [C)_No,6_ll_of2QQ9 Appellant The Oriental Insurance Corapany Ltd. Versus Respondents Puthri Bai alias Puni Bai Thakur & others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocates for the appellant. Shri B. L. Sahu, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 3. None for the respondents No. 4 and 5. ORDERJOr^l ( Passed on this 17th day ofJanuary, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company on the ground of quantum against the impugned award dated 25al September, 2007, passed by the 11th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Durg in Claim Case No. 51/2007, awarding a sum of Rs. 6,33,256/-. 2 . Learned counsel appearing.for the appellant submits that the appellant had got permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the Court below vide order dated 17.8.2007 and the question of quantum is only under challenge in this appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and t perused the lower Court record as well as the findings given in the impugned award. ^- ^Sy-^S^W^,^!^^^, Brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 2.2.2007 de'ceased Latel Thakur was returning to his house at Deverjhal from village Nandni - Khundani on his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 07/ZA/7237. When he reached on the turning of Old Bazar main road at about 6.30 p.m., a truck, bearing registration No. C.G. 07- ZC/1175, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the non-applicant No.l (Bharatlal Sahu) hit the motorcycle. As a result of this accident Latel Thakur fell dbwn on the road, came under the truck and received grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries. The offence of the incident was registered at Police Station Nandni under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The claimants, being widow, son and mother of the deceased, filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 12,28,088/- under various heads. Learned Claims Tribunal, having regard to the facts and evidence on record held that the clainiants are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,33,256/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum frora the date of the application i.e. 9.3.2007 till the payment is made. .However, it has been directed that if the amount of compensation is not deposited within one month, the amount of compensation shall carry simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The age of the deceased was 58 years. He was working as Drill Operator in Nandini Mines of Bhilai Steel Plant. His monthly gross salary was Rs. 16,142/- and the net salary after deductions of Rs. 9282/-, was shown as Rs. 6860/-. In the monthly deductions, ;.» 'e "?•••»&. •"»&^. -% ^ 1 a»-°^. !s»^ '•^ y^ the installment of loan regarding C.P.F. was Rs. 1999/-, contribution in C.P.F. was Rs. 1525/- and Cooperative deduction was Rs. 4272/-. We are of the opinion that the total amount towards these deductions cannot be deducted from the monthly income of the deceased, as they go in savings of the employee. But the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 9504/- and yearly income as Rs. 1,14,048/-, and after deducting l/31-d towards personal living expenses the yearly dependency was assessed as Rs. 76032/-. Applying the multiplier of 8 the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 6,08,256/- towards loss of dependency. Besides this the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5000/- towards consortium to the widow, Rs. 10,000/- to the son and Rs. 5000/- to the mother towards loss of love and affection and only Rs. 5000/- towards funeral expenses and loss of estate has been awarded, the total ofwhich comes to Rs. 25,000/-. 8 . Having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record, we assess the inonthly income of the deceased as Rs. 9504 + 1609 = 11.113/-, thereby the yearly income of the deceased is assessed as Rs. 1,33.356/-. After deducting l/3rd towards personal living expenses the annual dependency comes to Rs. 88904/-. According to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Vernia (Sint) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another1 the multiplier of 9 would be applicable in the present case as the deceased was aged 58 years i.e. between the age group of 50 and 60 years. Therefore, applying the multiplier of 9, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 88,904 x 9 = 8,00,136/- but the Tribunal' has awarded only Rs. 6,08,256/- towards loss of (2009J6 SCC 121 '"^^r.SS.iEK^B;,...^. ^:/-"^ ~"-, fcl^ i ti '•9S?S9:. S ^ T'S9 J 9. 10. dependency, which is inuch below the amounf which was to be awarded in respect of loss of dependency. Besides this, we find that award of compensation under the other heads (total Rs. 25,000/-j by the Tribunal was very less and therefore total award of Rs. 6,33,256/- by the Tribunal to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 6% needs no interference on the appeal filed by the Insurance Company on the ground of quantum. Therefore, it cannot be said that the amount of compensation is excessive. However, we feel that the penal interest imposed at the rate of 9% per annum is not proper and it should not have been imposed. Therefore, we set aside that part of the award and direct that the claimants are entitled for the amount of award along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum, only, from the date of the application. Rest of the conditions of the award by the Tribunal shall remain intact. The appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. No order as to costs. /" Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Thakur