•^! /. / Bi T3, §•.a i |X| (C -. °- .-i iB (Q 3 d) <p ='; ". - rt Q. 3 Bi (D Q. •" ^s s,r5 0 Q w S ^ 3- 3 m aj~ =) ail a 3' O !" 5- a- a> m 3 3 --<Q -O 0 =• m m "1 B)o o V B) EU 3 =! '0 m m' m(a ;dai T3 ow cn c/) ^- (D n' 3. m' ". ^ Q. (Q 3 =i-(Q as» 1X1 Stt o; m 5- 5- C/l (B 6 m =- E O ^^s 3 "§ ii% l;m ^ -:T -- 5. d S 1 1II o ^l. 11:1-1 s- ==; =^' i~gt t^" =!• 3 Q. ro5 "II -i;:l 5M(S' U> -!. EU ^r ~a m = 3 =t CD Qm ?' o-ll M» Q. ^- (Cp 5-ro3- y. B) -- ai^".S, JlISl —I—I '•^' ~E| d> ^ \SL ^^<^ o w vmw Dm ^ wc Vmv > -D•u m -i <m 70 cncw o o e O Q) [11 3. S-<Q m' S ro £B (Q m x c. 3io o ??§ ~t •" m r- '-i\ u -13 2il m 6 =r -a (Dx ro EU3Q. Q) -" EP 5" !B I—(n B) lits1 "I ^l 03 ;0 ? B) -6 -s"°. c 5 --' <Q i0-^ o|^lll (C CD ui m wo >-o -D m> o (7> \2 cr^ Noo 03 C/)c 3 S 8 Im IIoz ro r-mI 0To Qc•m oII> wo>;a Gali, New Chandaniya Para, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh [OWNER] MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE IVIOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 w.y Y <, \'- HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR &IVISION BENCH: HON'BLE ttR. I.M.QUO&USI A UfiKTBLE ttR^PRASHANT KUttARJiISHM JJ -A. [cl No.696/08 Aooellant ResDondents Vs ICICI Lombard Seneral Insurance Co. Ltd. Sanjay Kumar Soni A others Present: AAr. Amrito t)as, Advocate for the appetlant. None for the respondents No.l to 5 thoughserved OR&ER (Oran (10th DeMmber. 2010) I.ft. Quddusi. J: N. 5, .'\^ Service on respondent No.6, who is driver of the vehicle-in- question, is exempted. Respondent No.7 has refused to receive the notice, therefore, it shall be deemed that service has been effected on the respondent No.7. l-1eard the matter finally at the stoge of motion. The appellont-Insurnnce Company has filed this oppeal against the award dated 27.9.2007 passed in Claim Cose No.122/07 whereby the learned 2" Additionat Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (C6) (for short 'the tribunal') has allowed the claim petition of the claimants ond awarded a surn 0^ Rs.3,39,000/- to the claimants holding the appellant insurance company liable to satisfy the award. Permission under Section 170'of the AAotor Vehicles Act. 1988 to contest the claim on all avnilable defences wns granted to the appellant-insurance conipany. The claimants hove also filed a cross-objection for enhancement of the amount of compensation. ^-. h •.-'•.sss'9"--^ ./^s\ '%.. '^asssf' /:' \- 6. Brief facts of the case are thnt on 18.06.2006 at about 11.30 a.m. in the morning deceased Parwati Bai wos going townrds Balco from Urga Barbospur in the Hero Puch moped M/hich wns bein9 driven by her son Sanjoy Soni. When they reached near Village Kurudih, the truck benring registration number C611- AB-0193, driven by non-applicant No.l/respondent No.6 herein in rash and negligent manner, dnshed the moped as a result the deceased came under front tyre oftruckand sustained various injuries on her body. She was taken to the 100 Bed Hospital, Korba for trentment from where she wos referred to CIMS, Bitaspur and thereaftershe was referred to B.&M. Hospital, Champa where he died after two months from the dot^-of accident. The claimants, who are children of the deceased, have filed claim petition seeking compensotion of Rs. 19,40,OOO/- for her death. 7. The owner and the driver of the truck remained ex-parte. The oppellant filed its writtenstatement and took a defence that the truck in question was plied in breach of the policy conditions, t>- 8. The tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed as mnny as seven issues and after hearing the parties in the matter allowed the claim petition of the claimants ond awarded a sum of Rs,3,39,000/- along with interest ©9%p.o. 9. We hove heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned aword as also the record of the claims tribunnl. 10. From perusal of the record, it is evident that age of the deceased was 50-55 years and her annual income has been as r? Rs.36,000/-* i.e. Rs.3,000/- per month. However, whjle calcutating the loss of dependency, the tribunal deducted only ^1/3.'' towards personal and livin9 expenses of the deceassd, whereas a? per ,^<rr/a «?/wtf (Smt.) o»d others -vs- Defhf ^_ '., ' - ~'"~'~_^. '"''. Tfaiisport Corparaftoit ttiid.another re^or^ed in (2009) 6 SCC ,.-^"%£^,^ .^^^""^'l:v^ 9 •^ v~,-^-' »' 121 if the dependents are 4-6 in numbers, then 1/4 should be deducted. But here learned counsel for the appellant has raised a dispute thot some mole family members of the deceased were major and they cannot be soid to be dependent on the deceased. There is no evidence on record to show thnt the male members were not dependent on the deceased, however, looking to their oges, which are 32, 29, 27 & 21 years, we nre of the opinion that the tribunnl has rightly deducted 1/3 towards personal and living expenditure of the deceased. Further, towards loss of love A affection the tribunal has nwarded Rs.20,000/- and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses, but the tribunal has not granted any amount towards the loss of estate. However, a further sum of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded by the tribunal townrds medjcal and other expenses. Thus, we are of the opinion that no interference is required in the impugned award. 11. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the appeal as well as cross-objection filed by the claimonts deserve to be dismissed ond are'hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. Roshan/- SA'- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge .»•« k.x \s. d-