OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon'bie Shri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, IVI. A.(C)No.1034 of 2008 APPELLANT The Orientai Insurance Co. Ltd. RESPOMDEJSITS Versus Shriram and others. 0,RD_E,R For Pronouncenient ofOrder ^ .03.2011 Sd/- R-L. Jhanwar Judge uh 4<7 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon'bleShri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, M.A. (C) No.1034 of 2008 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS CLAIMANTS The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, through the Divisional Manager, Divisional No. 1, Jall Road, Raipur (C.G.) Versus 1. Shriram S/o Late Sagelu Chouhan, age 42 yrs., 2. Guiabi Devi W/o Shriram Chouhan, age 41 yrs. 3. Chhakkanlal, S/o Shriram Chouhan, age 13yrs., For minor ciaimant No.3 through guardian father Shriram Chouhan. Resident- through Arun Singh, H.No. 17, Shanti Vihar Colony, Kota Road, Mahoba Bazar, Raipur, Permanent address village Baliyakala, Post - Shikarganj, Thana / Tahsil - Chakiya, District Chandoli (Uttar Pradesh) 4. Chaitkumar s/o Lachchiram Dewangan, resident of Dewanganpara, Champa, District - Janjgir (C.G.) 5. Basant Kumar Patel, S/o Late Gokulram, resident of Pali (Naila) DistrictJanjgir. APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OFTHE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 RESPONDENTS/NON- APPLICANTS Appearance: Shri Sudhir Agrawai, counsel for the appeliant. None for respondents No.1 to 3/ciaimants. Shri Jay Shankar Pandeyfor respondents 4 & 5. ORDER (Passed on^..03.2011) This is an appea! by the insurer i.e. the Oriental Insurance Company Limited against the order ciated 25.01.2008 passed by the 14th Additional Motor Accidents CEaims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Raipur in Ciaim Case No.65/2007 whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,05,000/-astotal compensationto the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 in a death case. i ^^, .,^^^MAt..'s\- 'u 'K.. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.7,45,000/- claimed by respondents No,1 to 3/claimants by filing claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act of 1988') fpr the death of Panchu Chouhan in the motor accident on 2.8.2007, the Tribunal, on ctose scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, material placed and submissions made by respective parties, held that due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Truck bearing No. C.G. 12 C 1295 (for short (the offending truck*) the accident took piace in which the deceased had lost his life;asthe offending truck was on the date of accident insured, therefore, the insurancecompany was Hable to pay compensation and awardedcompensation of Rs.2,05,000/- with interest at 9%per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its reaiEzation. The Tribunal further directed the respondent No.S/appellant herein topay compensation amount of compensation. It is this order, which is under challenge by the Tribunai. 3. As respondents 1 to 3/claimants and respondents No. 4 & 5 did not file any appeal against the impugned award, the findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 4. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel forthe appellant vehemently argued that the learned Claims tribunal has erred in deduction 1/3rd whereas itshould be one-half since Shriram and Gulabi are the parents of the deceased and Chhakkan Lal is the brother of the deceased and Chhakkan Lal cannot be dependent. He further argued that the iearned Claims Tribunal hasalso erred in taking the incomeof the deceased at Rs.150/- per day whereas it should be at Rs.100/- per day. 5. On the other hand, Shri Jay Shankar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents 4 &5 argued in supportofthe impugnedaward. 6. In the present case, the question that arises for consideration is whether or not the amount of compensation of Rs.2,05,000/- is excessive. Admittedfy, on 2.8.2007 accident took place when the offending truck, owned by respondent No.5, hjt Panchu Chouhan on account of rash and negiigent driving by its driver. It is also admitted that the offending truck was insured by the appellant/insurance company. .fc.y. ^' ^ 7. In the instant case, based on Ex.P.12, which is ration card, the Tribunal determined the age of the mother and father of the deceased Panchu Chouhan as 65 years and 60 years. After determining the age of the parents as 65 and 60 years, the Tribunal applied multiplier of 5. Ex.P.13 is the document showing the daily wage of the deceased as Rs.150/- per day, which was proved by A.W.2 Arun Singh under whose company the deceased was working. 'Based on Ex.P.13, the Tribuna! fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.4500/- per month. Thereafter, the Tribunai, taking into consideration the age of the deceased and his parents, deducted one-third from Rs.4500/- towards personai expenses of the deceased and then worked out total annual dependency at Rs.36,000/-. The Tribunal further held that ciaimants are parents and brother ofthe deceased and there is no dispute thereof and by ration card Ex.P.12, it emerged that claimants are dependents and except Ex.P.12 no such documentwas produced and that oh account ofdeath of deceased in the motor accident, immense damage has beeh caused to them and as such they are entitled to receive compensation jointly and severally. The Tribunal, after working out the annual dependency, multiplied the same with the multiplier of 5 and assessed the tota! loss of dependency at Rs.1,80,000/-. By adding a sym of Rs.25,000/- under other permissible heads, total compensation of Rs.2,05,000/-was worked by the Tribunal for the death Panchu Chouhan in the motor accident 8. For the foregoing reasons, since the insurer has not been able to prove its case againstthe Ex.P.13, which is adocument showingthe daily wage ofthe deceased as Rs.150/- per day and has aiso not been able to prove that there was breach of policy of insurance, I am ofthe considered view that the Tribunaf was justified in holding the appellant / insurance company liable for payment of c.ompensation. i do not find any infirmity in theimpugned award. The impugned award is impeccabie. 9. In the result, the appeal, being devoid of merit and substance, is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to coste^ Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge ^ Wi