^' frr IN THE HIGH^OURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR: CHHATTISGARH MISC. APPEAL N^w OF 2005 SIOE APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 (Appeal valued at Rs. 7.85.000/-) APPELLANT NJ3N-APPLICANT N0. 2 !!'!';!l;fi|i'») The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , Branch No. 2, R.D.A. Building, Bajrang IVIarket, Raipur, Through its Branch Manager, Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS APPLICANT ^-A/ RESPONDENT N0. l, ^ . "\ yy.7 V ^-'t / ,y^y "w^ <^B/ -^' ff y" <i.-'.?' ^ <<- ^- '^'Ty ^^ i^. '•5 ' -..•f Smt. IVIanju Deshpandey, W/o Late Shri Vijay Deshpandey, Aged about 25 years, R/o Deepak Nagar, Street No. 2, P.S. IVlohan Nagar, Durg, Distt. Durg (CG) Ku. IVlanali Deshpandeyi, D/o Late Shri Vijay Deshpandey, aged about 8 years, R/o Deepak Nagar, Street No. 2, P.S. Mohan Nagar, Durg (CG) Vaibhav Deshpandey, S/o Late Shri Vijay Deshpandey, R/o Deepak Nagar, Street No. 2, P.S. IVlohan Nagar, Durg(CG) (Sl. No. 2 & 3 Minor through their Natural Guardian IVIother Smt. Manju Deshpandey, W/o Late Shri Vijay Deshpandey, R/o Deepak Nagar, Street No. 2, P.S. Mohan Nagar, Durg (CG) ••-s.,*i W*»sa^«,^—i .tf RESPONDENT N0. 2 NON-APPLICANT N0.1 (Driver & Owner of vehicle Mahendra Pick Up Van No. CG 04//A/8075) RESPONDENT N0.3 NON-APPLICANT N0. 3 ..tfSurendra Shah, S/o Tiptesh Shah, R/o Hirapur Sawarkar Nagar, Raipur LIG 223, Raipur (CG) ^-I.S. Deshpandey S/o Late ''Shri Haribhau Deshpandey, Aged about 79 years, R/l Vaishali Nagar EWS (Behind Sanskritik Bhavan), Bhilai, The. & Distt. Durg(CG) ^••- Being aggrieved by the award dated 28.2.2005 passed in IWotor Accident Claims Ca,se No. 30i/2004 by "8th Additional IVlotor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Durg (between the parties Smt. Manju Deshpandey and others Vs. Surendra Shah and Others), the Appellant begs to prefer this appeal on the following facts and grounds; FACTS OF THE CASE -—<— —- <<\.v^ 's^ -E HIOH COURT OF CHHATNSCtARH. BtlASPVR DB: HOM'BLBLM. QXIDDU8I & HOM'BLB PRASHANT KOMAR MI8HRA., JJ, M. A. No, 781 OF 2W)5 Vs. MI8C. APCTiAL U/S 173 OF THB MOTOR VBHICLE8ACT, 1988 APPBARAMCE; Mr. Sazirabh Staarma, counsel&rthe appeUant. Mr, Sameer KUJIU-, counsel for respondeats l(^(b)(c). Ms. Sareena Khan, coiiasel for respondent no.3. ^-\ Per I.M. QUDDUSI. A ORIMiR (ORALI (02.02.2011) 1. This appeal has been fited by the Insurance Conipany against the awaid dated 28.02.2005 passed by VIII Addl. Motor Accideat Claims Tribimal (F.T.C), Dm^, (C.G) m Claim Case No.301/2004 awardmg Rs.7,86,000/-. 2. Brief faets of the case as pcr the versioa of the claunants atc fhat on 15.05.2002 n^ht at 2.00 a-m., deceased Vijay Deshpande, afier imloading the passengers at Bhilai, was TRtnmmg on hjs Auto beanng Regn. No. M.K.T.1180 to Durg Railway Slation. On the way, oae Mahiadra Rick Up beariag Rega.No.C.G.04-A/8075 whicb was being driven by respondent s.o.1 in a rash aud negl^ent maaaer dashed the vehicte of Vijay Deshpaade, as a result of whfch, he sustamed grievous iajuries and djed on the spot. Non- '-., < applicant no.l was the owner pfthe oflreiidmg vefaicle that is APPELLANT | Thc New India Assurance Co. Ltd., RBSPOMDERT8 Smt. Manju Deshpandey ig|Bi» SK Mabindra Pick Up No.C.G.04-A/8075. At the time of accident, fhc deccascd was married and aged about 30 years. He was owner aad driver of Auto bearing Rega. No.M.K.T.1180 aad was eamiag Rs.6000/- per monfh by carryu^ p^sengers iri the said vehicte. Besides this, he was also eammg Rs.1580/- by doing other busiaess. The claimaats that a the widow and xniaor children being legal representatives offhe deceased filed an appUcation u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 clauning compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,20,000/ - on various heads. 3. The learaed Clauns Tribunal has recoided fhe findings that due to rash aad negligent driving of respondent no.2, the vehicle bearing Rega.No.04-A/8075 daahed the vehicte of deceased in fix>nt ofGirls CoBege, Duxg, aa a tesult ofwhich, fhe deceased died on the spot and it is not proved fhat eifher the deceased was himself responsibte or the accident has occurred resulting in contributoiy negla^ence, 4. The learaed counsel for fhe appeBant bas raised two fold contentions. The first one is fhat the Tribuaal has not considered fhe contnbutoiy negUgence and fhe latter is fhat the quantum. has been fixed iu excessive. 5. With regard to ttie contributoiy negligcnce, we have pcrused fhe Idwer court records. Besides the other evidence aad FIR, fhere is site Map pre'^ared by the luvestigatlt^ OfiBcerwliich depicts the situation of fhe accident. The auto of decease& was on extreiae left side while the offendiag vehicle that 1s Mahiadra Pick Up was conung fix>na. fh.e opposite directton. There is a fura and while taking tura instead of going r~) QD/QCD cc^nnnc_cnnn B .: is 2; towards left side, it came extreaiely on ttie right side aad collided wifh fhe auto. Tfaus the situatfa)a af the offending vehicte towards extreiue nghtside clearly shows its coUusion with the auto. Therefore, the contention of contributoay uegligence raiscd by the leacned counsel for the appcllant is coiapletety ruled out. 6. Wifh regard to the ncxt poiat fhat m quantum, we have seen fhat the Tribunal has assessed iacoiae of the deceased as Rs.6000/- per m.onth by nmning auto. Siace the deceased was married and was having 3 depcndent famity ineinbers, fhe Tribunal has rightly deducted l/3rd towanls persenal and Uvii^ expenses finxa the aanual incoine and assessed the loss ofiaconie as Ra.4000/- per inonth and Rs.48,000/- per annum. The Tribunal has adopted multiplier 16 which seem.s to be higher. The date of birfh of the deceased was mentioned as 28.9.1963 in the Vocational Course Tiainmg Ccrtificate produced vide Ex.P-13, acc'ording to which, the deceased was aged about 39 years aad therefore, the inultiplier of 15 should have been applieable as per the miiltipUer scale prescribed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Sarta Verma. (SnsL) and others -vs- DeOti Trwiaport CorporaSSsn and another vide para 40 reporfed to (2009) 6 SCC 131. Thus ifwe appfy the muteplier 15, tfae total loss ofdependency comes to Rs.7,20,000/- (Rs.48,000 x 15). Besidcs fhis, the clannauts are also entitled to g^. Rs. 10,000/- for loss ofGonsortium to the wife and Rs.5000/- each fTotal Rs. 10,000) for loss of love and affection to the minor children; Rs.10,000/- toss of estate and Rs.5000/- towaids funeral expenses which iu aU coiucs to Rs.35,000/- w--cuycr^eaOCF- m-,—y "/ (H:'r".i';';;':-':; 1 T?rT T T 'lllB under the other beads, Thus ffae total compcasation comes to Rs.7,55,(X)0/- (Rs.7,20,000 + 35,000). But fhe Tribunal has awarded Rs.7,85,000/- whfch in our opuuon seeias to be excessive and therefore, we reduce tfae same to Rs.7,55,000/ - wblch the claimants are entitled to receive fiTom. fhe appellaat. •» 7. Further the Tribuxial has initialty gianted 6% aimpte mterest in case fhe amoiint is paid wifhin the stipulated period, but after fhe stipulated pcriod it Iias imposed pcaal inteiest @ 10% per anTiiim which is not proper and therefore that part of the judgmcnt iaaposing fhe penal interest iipoa the appeBant is set asidc. Wc duect fhat tihis award shall cany simple iuterest @ 6% per nnniim through-out fiona the date of the ffling of fhe claiia appUcation till the paynwnt is inade. 8. In the result, the appeal is aUowed in parfc The impugned award dated 28.2.2005 is naodified to the above extent. No order as to cost Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sdl- prashant Kumar ^Aishra Judge Rao ^C5-^ M U1<^V