E:.rLrr_::::-^";""^:T c ^ .1^' t IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C) N0. \.{°5 /2009 APPELLANTS Non-applicants «fc-^ ••••^<'. 1. Dinesh Kumar Chandra, S/o. Bandrika Prasad Chandra, Aged about 35 years, R/o Bazar Chowk Sarsiwa, Police Station ^ ^ryt^ Sarsiwa, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Raipur (CG) t>' ^•'"-......-•^ -^4' ^-".^.A^V ':A^ \^.\ ^ ...^ ^' —Ownerofoffendins vehicle No. CG - 13/ZD/0936 2. ^- RESPONDENTS 1 Claimants ^ '> 3] Shabbir Khan, S/o. Pari Khan, Aged about 27 years, R/o. Village Bilaspur, Police Station Sarsiwa, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Raipur (CG) —Dnverofoffendinsvehicle No.CG - 13/ZD/0936 VERSUS Setram Sriwas, S/o. Anandi Shriwas, aged about: 50 years, Ganesh Kunwar Shriwas, W/o. Setram Shriwas, Aged about 48 years, Both above R/o. village Bilaspur, Police Station Sarsiwa, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Raipur (CG) United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Gopi Talkies, College Road, Raigarh (CG) Respondent/ non'applicant no.3 APPEAL UNDER SEGTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT ...-.•-"%^^\^ ^••^^ ""^^ I i 1 '-as-s% j vv^- h^^ o HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (Q No. 405 of 2009 APPELLANTS Non-applicants RESPONDENTS Claiinants Dinesh Kumar Chandra and another. Versus Setram. Sriwas and others. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Aearwal, J PRESENT: Shri Manoj Paranjpe with Shri Vikram Dixit, Advocate for the appellants. None for respondents No. 1 & 2 though served. Shri Dashrath Gupta for respondent No.3. ORAL AWARD (16.09.2011) This is owner's appeal against the award dated 11.02.2009 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sarangarh in Claim Case No. 19/2007. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.14,16,000/- claimed by the unfortunate parents of the deceased Lochan Sriwas, aged about 27 -28 years, by filing application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') for his death in the motor accident dated 29.04.2007, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.1,86,400/- along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 3. The learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held: the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver ofJeep bearing registration No.C.G. 13 ZD- 0936; Lochan Sriwas died on account of injuries sustained by him in the said accident; exonerated respondent No-3/insurance company from its liability to pay compensation as the insurance company has successfully proved violation of policy conditions; assessed and awarded the aforesaid amount as compensation along with interest at 5% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment against the appellants. 4. Shri Manoj Paranjpe with Shri Vikram Dixit, leamed counsel appearing for the appellants would submit: the Tribunal has erred in selecting multiplier of 16 in place of 10 and thus has fallen in error in awarding compensation of 1,86,400/- to the claimants, which is shocking on higher side. 5. On the other hand, Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.S/United India Insurance Company Limited supported the award impugned and submitted that the award impugned is just and reasonable aiid need not be interfered with. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned including the record of the Tribunal. 7. The Tribunal held, deceased Lochan Sriwas was working as Barber but without any rhyme or reason, assessed his income as Rs.1300/- per month. The accident had occurred in the year 2007 and a Barber, in the facts and circumstances of the case, could have easily earned Rs.3000/- per month in the year 2007 and the Tribunal has certainly erred in assessing the / m.onthly income of the deceased. Although Shri Manoj Paranpe is correct in saying, while selecting multiplier, the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the age of the deceased or the claimants, whichever is higher, but at the same time, the Tribunal has also committed error in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.1300/- per month only. 8. When the matter is examined in the context of above broad features of the case, in my considered opinion, the compensation of Rs.1,86,400/- awarded by the Tribunal for the death of 27 - 28 years old Barber to his unfortunate parents cannot be said to be on higher side. 9. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge