1 IN THE mOH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURfC.G.) M.A.(C) No. ^^^. OF 2006 rAPPEAL VALUED AT Rs 2.96.000 /-) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEmCLESACT.1988. APPELLANT (NON-APPLICANT N0.3) ^•^ ^•'\^^' ..<( ^I..--"" RESPONDENTS (APPLICANT) The New India Assurance Company Limited, Near Jhankar Talkies,Jaipur Road, Jagadalpur,Distt. Bastar(CG). Through: Its, Divisional Manager, Divisional-Office, IInd Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Above UTI Bank, Opp. Rajiv Plaza, Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur (CG). VERSUS :1. (NON-APPLICANTNO.l) :2. (NON-APPLICANTN0.2) :3. (NON-APPLICANTN0.4) :4. Smt. Putul Vishwas w/0 Vikash Vishwas @ Angrej , aged -37 years., caste- Namshudra Bengali, R/0- Adawal(Orana Camp), Tah,- Jagadalpur, Distt•~ Bastar(CG). Anm Kiuxiar Khatri S/0- Meghraj Ji Khatri, R/0-Kumharpara Santoshi ward, Jagdalpur, Distt.-Bastar (CG). Tarachaadra Khatri S/0- Not known, R/O-Main road, Jagadalpur, Distt.-Bastar (CG) . Vikash Vishwas @ Angrej, R/0- Adawal(Orana Camp), Tah.-Jagadalpur, Distt.- Bastar(CG). XI-HC-78 3TT^T^rf^TW cT^TT 3TR?T ^RTcF ^ ^II+IMI 9h*1ich 3^T^l^lcrt^, ^Tn<-141<o, f^<rfl<1^< ^^ACQm'S^ ^[ 200^ 3TT^T q^RRT (^qi^q^T) ?;RTTW ^f?cT ^TT^T 06/12/2006 Shri Dashrath Gupta, cour|sel for the appellant. Heard. This Miscellaneous Appe( 30.08.2006 passed in Claim Ca|se Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC)J case of accidental death of a girl| Rs.2,96,000/- has been awarded.l il is directed a^ainst the award dated No. 93/2006 by IV Additional Motor Bastar, Jagdalpur (C.G.) whereby in a aged about 17 years, a compensatlon of Shri Dashrath Gupta, lea)' dispute the fact that the offendir|ig and that the appellant faited to insurance. Learned counsel for the question of quantum. It was| applicable to this case is 16 wher^ learned M.A.C.T. The only poirtt appellant is that the learned computing the loss of dependenc^ the deceased at Rs.3000/- since running the hotel business. It ought to have assessed loss in view of the fact that the decea^e< around 25 years. Reliance Manaaina Difector. Raiasthan ws|s another 2004 (3) T.A.C., 821 (M. award. <=bl^f^l41v1 HT^ff ^' fe^ <^1<-^I< ^3:rf^R'3TT^T |rned counsel for the appellant does not vehiclewas insuredby the appellant e|stablish breach of terms of the policy of (he appellant argued this appeal only on also not disputed that correct multiplier »asmultiplier 12 has been applied bythe urged by the learned counsel for the Mlotor Accident Ctaims Tribunal erred in and determined the monthly income of (he deceased only assisted her mother in also urged that the leamed Tribunal of d|Bpendency only at 1/3rd of Rs.2,88,000/- i^ed would have got married at tihe age of placed on Hafki Bsd & anoffier Vs. IStete Road Transoort CorDoration & w|as '.) Having considered the sut:|missions, 1 have perused the impugned XI-HC-78 3TT^T^T(<^icb cT^T3TT^T9b+4|cb L^ 3^T ^I^Krt^, ^Tn<-J41(o, [slcni<rl^< *11+<crll ff»*1ich ^[200 ^TI-|5|Ch (^Glt^GK^T) ^RTT^K ^f?cT 3=TT^T - ^- It is not disputed that th^ running a hotel. On a query, that in cross-examination of tl1 deceased was only assisting hei| also not disputed that the insure< to rebut the testimony of the clai| only assisting her mother in th^ learned counsel for the appellanf 1 am of the considered opinion aged 17 years who was runnirtg meager sum of Rs.3000/- per recorded by the learned M.A.C|T deceased at Rs.3000/- cannot lelarned deceased was aged 17 y^irs and was counsel for the appellant admitted le claimant, it was not asked that the mother in running hotel business. It is did not lead any evidence independently Tiant and to prove that the deceased was hotel business. The contention of the is therefore, unacceptabte. In any case, it cannot be accepted that a young giri a hotel would not be earning even a i. In this view of the matter, the finding \ assessing the monthly income of the that m^nth So far as the loss of depjendency has already applied a iesser mu|tiplier average age of the parents applicable is 16 whereas the tear|ned Learned M.A.C.T. has, in the pe^uliar also rightly deducted one-thir<|l personal expenses and assessejd by 12, In this view of the matfer, raised by the learned counsel could be only 1/3rd of Rs;2,88,00<)/- !t is also noteworthy that the Section 170 of the Motor Vehicl^s permission to the insurer to c<l>ntest <=bi^?Qi41-i flTO^ff ^ te^f <f^<-<ii< ^3Tf^T3TT^T b4 faulted with. is concerned, leamed M.A.C.T. than the multiplier applicable. The M^orks out to be 36 and the multiplier M.A.C.T. has applied multiplier of 12. facts and circumstences of this case/ of the monthly dependency towards the loss of dependency by multiplying it r, 1 find no substance in the conterrtion the appellant that loss of dependency insurer had filed an application under Act before the M.A.C.T. which granted the claim on all qrounds without satisfying itself as to the existence of any of the conditions enum6rat^d in XI-HC-78 3^T^T^TT^RT, ^Tfl<-t41^, ^<ni^^< ^n^T^T^Jch cT8TT3TT^T$t)^l<=b h*^' ^ ^TH^TTSb+llch ^ 200 3ll^l ^i5icb (lic<^<sl^€T) 5^cTT^K ^cT ^TT^T clauses (a) or (b) of Section 17f have applied its mind and ough| there was collusion between the against whom the claim is mac 30.8.2006 cleariy goes to show| <=bi^f^i41<i ^i^QiT^:te^t'<rai^i< ^^rf^TOT^T 3. In fact the leam^d M.A.C.T. ought to to have given reasons to conclude that person maklng the claim and the person le or that the person against whom the claim is made had failed to cont^st the claim. A copy of the order dated that no reason was assigned and both driver and owner of the offendin& vehicte were contesting parti^. tn this view of the matter, 1 am of tl|ie considered opinlon that the learned M.A.C.T. ought not to have pelrmitted the insurer to contest the claim beyond grounds permissible un<(ler sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Be that as it may, t do n^t find any merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the ^ippellant. This miscellaneous appeal is accordingiy dismissed at the Sta^ie of admission. Consequently, M.(C.).P. proceedings also stands dismiss^d lo. 2148/2006 for staying the execution Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge P.T.O. \^