HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR Mlsc.Appeal (Cl No. 409 of 2008 APPELLANTS OWNER&DRJVER 1. Dhaniram Patej S/o Jndal Prasad Patei. Aged about 50 years, R/o Village Gadgaon, Post Chanat, Police Statlon Basna, Tahsij Basna, District Mabasamund (Owner of the Offendlng Vehscle) 2. Padamlochan Patel, S/o Dhaniram PateS, Aged about 32 years. R/o Vitlage Gudgaon, Police Statlon Basna, Tshsli Basna, Djstrict Mahasamund (C.G.) (Driver of the Oflending Vehlcte) Versus 1. Smt. Bedmotl. Wd/o Late Punit Ram Gond, Aged about 55 years, R/o Village Barekej, Poltee Station & Tahsli Basna, Distrfet Mahasamund (C.G.) 2. I.C.I.C.I. Lombard, Generai Insurance Company Limtted, Lai Ganga Complex, G.E. Road, Raipur, Dlstrict Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent/Non-applicant) APPEAL U/S 173 OF_THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.1988 RESPONDENTS/ CLAIMANTS (SinaSe Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) ^ Present Shri Manoj Paranjape, counsel aiong with Shri Vikram Dixlt, counsel for the appeSian^s. Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, counsel for respondertt No.1. Shri Amrito Das, counsel for respondents No.3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 18th day of March,2010) "^ This is owner's appeal against the award dated 11-01- 2008 passed by Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunaj, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.66/2007 whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.2,44,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of applicatjon till its payment has been awarded in favour of the claimants and as against the appellants exonerating respondent No.S/lnsurance Company from its liability. 2. The facts briefly stated are as under: Punit Ram (since deceased) on 27-03-2007 met with an acoident with new Tractor bearing registration No. C.G. 06- C/1671 and Trolley bearing regt^ration No. C.G. 06-C/4835 and succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. 3.. The claimants have preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the Act') claiming Rs.12,20,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased in the said accident against the appellant as wetj as respondent No.3. 4. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evtdence ied, material placed and submissions made, held appellant No.2 responsibte for the said accident; assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/" per month i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum, deducted 1/3rd of it towards personal expenses ofthe cieceased hetd age of the deceased about 60 years at the time of accident and apptied the multiplier of 10 and awarded Rs.2,40,000/- as compensation towards loss of dependency. Learned Tribunal has further awarded Rs.4,000/- on other heads and thus awarded a total sum of Rs.2,44,000/- against the appellants. Respondent No.S/lnsurance Company has been exonerated from its jiability to pay compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the appetiants woukl submit that since the deceased was between 55 and 60 years, the learned Trtbunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 10. He would ^" ~% 1 V 'v^ further submit that the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier 8 instead of 10. 6. On the other hand, learned counset appearing for respondents/claimants supported the award and submitted (hat the learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multipller of 10 and the award passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be upheld. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned. 8. The learned Tribunal has held that the deceased was of the age of 60 years at the time of accident. Second Schedule appended to Section 163-A ofthe Act, prescribes ie multiplier of 8 when the age of victim is between 55 and 60 years. In view of above, in the considered opinion of this Court leamed Tribunal has erred in applying the mujtiplier of 10 while computing the amount of compensation and appropriate multiplier would be 8. Therefore, 1 propose to re-compute the compensation. By applying the multiplier of 8, the compensation would be worked out to Rs.1,92,000/- on account of ioss of dependency. The claimants are further entitled to Rs.10,000/- on other heads and thus, the claimants are entitled to Rs.2,02,000/- as compensation aiong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application tili its payment. 9. For the foregoing, the appeal preferred by the claimants is allowed in part and the amount of compensation is reduced by Rs.42,000/- and now the claimants are entitled for Rs.2,02,000/- •2 as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of applteation till jts payment. 10. !n view of above, stay granted eariier stands vacated. 11. No order asto costs. Kvr Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge