^^l !N THR HOMBLE HIGUL COU8T QF JUDICATU^^T^BUJ^EUR MA.(C)No.^X^ QF 2010 (APPEAL VALUED AT Rs. 19,OC^0007-f APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 _QF THE MQTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988. 90 ^ APPELANT (NON- APPLICANT N0.3) ...^^ ^^€-^ ,^'-' RESPONDENTS (APPLICANT) (APPLICANTNO.l) (NON-APPLICANT N0.1) (NON-APPLICANT N0.2) :3. :4. The New India Assurance Gompaay Umited^ Through: Its Divisional Manager, Divisional- Office, Hnd Floor, Rania Trade Centore, Above Axis Bank, Opp.- Rajiv Plaza, Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, Tah. & Distt.- Bilaspur(CG) VERSUS Smt Parvindar Kaur, Wd/0- Late Paramjeet Singh Bhatia, aged-36 years, R/0- Ku. Tamiupreet Kaur, D/0- Late Paramjeet Singh Bhatia, aged about-15 years, Respondent No.2 is minor, through. her mother-Smt. Parvindar Kaur P?espondent- no.l) Both are R/0- Vfflage - Simga Raipur, at present- Dayalband near Khalsa School, Bilaspur, .Distt. - Bilaspiir (C.G.) RiyajKhan, S/0-Rafik Khan, Aged about-25 years, R/0- Shriram Nagar Rawanbhatha Mandir Hasaud, P.S.-Maadir Hasaud, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.)(Driver) Rajesh Kumar Chelak, S/0- Sumiran Das, aged about 23 years, R/0- Village-Chhatera (Chhota Para), P.S.-Arang, Distt. - Raipiir (C.G.)(Owner) .-^ ^.t^.;; ^'^ ^ i^-ssi^ ^SP^I t '\^J. V^r^ ^' ^^2 ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri !.M. Quddusi, J. & Hon'ble Shri Prasharst Kumar Mishra.A SVS.A.fClNo. 665 of 2010 APPELLANT The New India Assurance Company LJmited. Versus RESPONDENTS Smt. Parvindar Kaur and others. Appearance: Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsei for the app©Itant Shri Samir Singh, counset for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri Indrasen Sahu. counsel for respondent No,4. ORAL ORDER (28/02/2011) Following oral order of the Court was passed by t. SVS. Quddusi. J. (1) This appeal has been fited against the impugneci award of II Addjtional Motor Accident Claims Tribunat, Bjlaspur (C.G.) passed in CIaim Case No, 146/2008 bythe New Indja Assurance Co. Ltd./appeliant against the liabjllty as well as quantum. (2) Permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehides Act was granted to the appellant. (3) The brief facts of the case as narrated in the claim petltion are that on 23/07/2008 deceased Paramjit Singh Bhatia along with hjs brother-in- law Hjra @ Bhupendra Singh were coming to Bilaspur jn Wagon-R bearing registratlon No. C.G. 4-J.B./9900, near bridge situated at Maniari river truck bearing registration No. C.G. 4-J.B./0478 belng driven rashly and negligently by non-appiicant No.1 dashed the Wagon-R and caused the accident. as a result of which Paramjlt Singh Bhatia and Hira received grievous injuries and Paramjit Singh Bh-atia died on the spot. Deceased wa^ havlng 1/4th share in M/s Supor Cament Cam©rand threo trucks, ^s^ - ^ Wagon-R etc. were in his name. He was atso doing the supervision work of 33 trucks. The claimants have ctaimed compensation of Rs.38,50,000/-. (4) Learned counset for the appeilant has urged two grounds, the first was that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and the driving licence was fake. Regarding the quantum his argument is that accordSng to the Income Tax return f'led by the deceased he was owner of two trucks as wel! as was having agricultural income. The truck as well as agricuitural land will not go anywhere on the death of the deceased and therefore there will be a slight loss of jncome of the family but not the tota! loss of income of the family. (5) With regard to the fake driving licence, we have perused the Lower Court Record and found that no evldence has been led by the Insurance Company to prove the same as burden of proof was on the insurance company and it shouid have called the Qfficia! from the office of the licencing authority but the same has not been done. Moreover, if the owner of the vehicle has a reasonable relief that the driver engaged by him to drive the vehicie was having a genuine driving licence it js the duty of the insurance company to prove that the owner had not taken any care to verify about the genuineness ofthe driving licence ofthe driver and this has not been done by the insurance company, therefore the contention raised in this regard by learned counsel for the appellant js not sustainable. (6) With regard to the quantum. we have seen that in the return filed by the deceased in the Income Tax Department he has shown the ownershjp of two trucks as well as agricultural land, hence on his death though the income ofthe truck as well as agricultural income will be affected but there (^^ -5 will not be total loss of income. however the daimants have tried to establish that the deceased was a partner of the firm and the firm was dissolved but no document was filed in that regard, however even iffor the sake of arguments it is presumed that the firm was dissolved which owned 33 trucks, on dissolution of firms the property will be divided amongst the partners or tegal heirs of the partne.rs, therefore in no case the share of the deceased would 90 anywhere except to his fami!y. (7) In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the quantum fixed by the Tribunal treating the total loss of income of the famiiy is not proper. The income of the deceased has been shown as Rs. 2,54,940/- from income of the trucks as well as agricultural incomQ. Aft©rdoducting 1/3rd due to personal living expQHSQS tho amount according to the Tribunal comes to Rs.1,70,000/- but the family will certainly get some amount from the income through the supervisor. Since there is no male member in the famlly to carry on the business, therefore we assess 50% loss towards Rs. 1,70.000/- per year which comes to Rs.85,000/- per year. Considering the age ofthe deceased as 43 years a multiplier of 14 as mentioned in Sarfa Vorma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported jn (2009) S S.C.C. 12i would be applicable and therefore after applying that multiplier the loss of income comes to Rs.85000 x 14 = 11 ,90,000/-. Besides this the widow will be entitled to get Rs.10,000/- as loss of consortium and the minor girl would get Rs.5,000/- as loss of Jove and affection, for funeral expenses the family is entitled to get Rs.5.000/-. for loss of estate Rs.10,000/-. Thus the dajmants would be entitied to get Rs.11.90,000 + Rs.30,000 = Rs. 12,20,000/- . The daimants will be entltled to get 6% per annum simple interest from the date offiling the claim petition i.e. 16/09/2008 till the date -^- of payment of the amount of the award. The amount of Rs.10,00,000/- would be kept in fixed deposit for six years in a Natjonalized Bank and the remaining shal! be paid to the claimants in cash. The amount which is already in deposit or has been deposited shall be adjusted towards the amount of compensation. (8) The a^peal is allowed in part to the above extent. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd//- prashantKumarMishra Judge Y3- r