t -? Tl^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIl.ASPUR; MISC. APPEAL fCI N0. QF2007 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OFMOTOR VEHIC1.ES ACT APPEAL VALUED AT RS. 5^23.0001- ADpellant lon-Applicantno. 3 ^•'' The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) through the Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Col Ltd., Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Versus ResDondents Applicant No.l ^^'^ ,^<^y a/ MansQor Bhai Kapasi S/o Abdulla Bhai, aged about 54 years ,b/ Haseena BaiW/o Mansoor Bai, aged about 50 years Respondent ^ ^ f^fon-Applicant No.l c/..Husaina, S/o Mansoor ^ Bhai,agedabout 14 years(Minor through mother Haseena Bai W/o Mansoor Bhai) (All residents of Rajendra Nagar, Ward No. 6, House No. 8, Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) Tarandas, S/o Khorbahara aged about33 years, R/o Rajpur, P.S. Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur Respondent -^'- 3.^ Naseem Bano, D/o Abdul Kon-Applicant No.2 ' ' ^ Gaffar R/o Bada Bazar, '(Vehicle Owner) Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) Baij-iri •^'-'nriini m. r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTBBQARH, BIIASPUR DB: HOIPBLE I.M. QUDDOSI & HON'BLE PRASHAHT KUMARMISHRaL, JJ M. A (Ct. Mo. 1S3 OF 2007 Vs. APPESAL UNDBR SBCnOBF 173 GF THB MOTOR VBHICa*BS ACT. 1988 APPBARANCB Mr. Dashrath Gupta, couasel for fhe appellant Mr. AIi Asgar, coimsel for respoudent no. 1(^ (b) and (c) . Mr. PaUav Mishra, counsel for respoadcnte 2 & 3. Per I.M. QUDDUSI. J. ORDBR (ORALt (05.04.2011) 1. TIus appeal has been filed by Ihe Insiu-aace Coiapany scgainst the impugaed award dated 24.11.2006 passed by tfae II Addl Motor Accaient Claims Tribunal (F.T.C), Mungeli, D^trict Bilaspiir (C.G) ia Claim Case No.3/2006 challfingmg the quantuin. 2. Bricf facts of the case, as per fhe version of fhe claimaats, are fhat on 29.09.2005 at about 6 p.m., deceased Abbas Iws boarded ftie Bus No.C.G.10-A/4238 along-with his re]adves. At the tiine when fhe dcceased waa getting dowa after payfag chaxges to the conductor, he suddcnty caaac under fhe Bus which ran over Tiim due to rash aad negligent dxivms of the respondent no.2, as a result ofwhich, the deceascd died on the spot. At fhe tiiae ofaccident, hc was ^ed about 24 years aud was dealtng in whole-sale and retail busiuess of foot- wears in Gol Bazar, Mungeli. His net income was Rs. 10.000/- per monfh after deductu^ the persoiial expenses. The claimaats who are parents and unmarried Of^ APPELLANT The New India Assuiance Company Limited RESPOWDBMTS Maasoor Bliai Kapsi aild otliers sister of the deceased bemg dependents/tegal representatives, have filed claim petition for award of coinpeasation to fhe tune of Rs.17,48,000/- on vanous heads. 3. The learaed Claiins Tribunal has held that fhe deceased came under fhe Bus No.C.G.10-A/4238 due to rash aad negUgent drreing of its driver fhat is respoudent no.2, as a result ofwhiclt, deceased died and it is not proved that there was breach of coiiditions of the insuraace policy. The Tribiinal has awarded a total coinpensation ofRs.5,23,000/- which ftie claimaats are entitled to reccwe fcosa. the appeUant aud respondents 2 & 3 jointly aad severaUy. 4. The Tnbunal has presumed fhat in thc foot-wear shop owued by the dece^ed, his fafh.er would have also joiaed 1iim ia fhe shop but there is no cvidence available on record regatding ttiis. The appellant was graated permission u/s 170 of fhe Motor Veliicles Act and it was open &>r fhe iasurance coiapany to produce thc evidence ia respect of actual iacoine of fhc deceascd, but the same has not been produced and in absence of any eviden.ee contraiy to what has been avaUabte on record, fhe Court caa assess fhe annual incoiae offhe deceased itself, but it is not open to the court to presuiae the joint ownership or contributjon of the father towards his busiaess. 5. The income of the deceased has been aUeged as Rs. 10,000/- per inonfh fi?oiu fhe business of foot-wears in the shop. It has coine on evidence that he was doiag fhe busincss of wholesalc and retaU but since no copy of the incoiae tax returu fa avaBable on record, fhe annual iacome af fhe deceased cannpt be taken as Rs.1,20,000/- pcr anaum. Therefore, we are of the opiniDn fhat (he iucome of fhe deceased should be liaaited to Rs.7000/- per month. After deducting 50% towards has persoaal aad li»iagexpenscs as fhe deceased was bachelor, the loss of dependcncy comes to Rs.3500/ - per month and Rs.42,000/- per year. Thc ages of his parents were 54 and 50, the average ofwhich c<»nes to 52 years and they faU within fhe age group of 51 to 55. Therefore, accordiag to the niultiplier scate given in Starta Verma. (Bmfc/ -vs- DelM TnaujNtrt Corponrtton caid anoffter (Para 40) reported in (2009) 8CC 121, muUiplfer 11 shouldhave beenmade applicable. Hence, fhe Tribunal was not cortect in applying miiltiplier 17. On apptying laultipUer 11, the total toss of dependency was worked out as Rs.4,62,000/- (42,000 x 11). 6. In Para 32 of .Sarfeii Verma's case (suyaf, Hon'bfe the Supreme Court tsjas laid down that evea If (he dece^sed is sumved by parente and sibUngs, only the inofhcr would be considered as a dependent and 50% would be treated as personal aud Uving expenses ofthe bachelor and 50% as the contribution to fhe faauly. In fhfa case, it bas coaac in fhc evidcnce that thc uiuaarried sister of the dece^ed was to be married, for fhat fhe deceased was coUectmg inoney fer hcr marriagc. Any how, we have deducted 50% aiaount for personat and liviag expenses aad thus the total loss of dependency woirid coxne to Rs.4,62,0(X)/-. The Tlribuaal has wrongly assesscd tfae total loss of dependency as Rs.5,10,000/- whlch we modify to fhe extent of Rs.4,62,000/-. Besides fhe abovc, siace fhe sole son of the pareats aad brofher of fhe sole umaan-ied sister died, the loss of love aad aEfection tcwards his parents would be Rs.10,000/- cach and &r hm sister i.e., Claiiaaat no.3 it wouU be Rs.5000/-(total Rs.25,000). The pareuts are also eutirtled to get Rs.10,000/- tawanls loss of estate; Rs. 5000/- for funeral cxpenses and Rs.3000/- for transporing the body of tfae deceased from. fh.e spot, as aroanled by thc Tribunal, which in. all coiac to Rs.43,000/- ziuder the other heads. Thus fhe total conipensation com.es to Rs.5,05,000/- which the claitaants are entilled to receive firoin the appcBaut. The Tribunal has ia all awarded Rs.5,23,000/- which is reduced to that ofRs.5,05,000/-. The Tnbuaal has fiirther awaided sinaple interest @ 7% per annum. fisoni ttie date of filmg of fhe claini pelition tiU its p^ment te made, which shaflremaiaiate.et. However, Rs.2 lakhs stoaU. bc deposited iu the joint xiame of CIaunants/ respondente 1(^ ,-y. •S& -^*T*^-&*u^Bi*.^ %. •VSQ^S^" -^ . ^ v 'vy & l(b) and Rs.3 laldis ia fhe name ofClainaant/respondent No. l(c) for a period of six years i& any Natioiialized Baak. Thereafter, the rest of fhe awaxd shaU be paul ia cash to fhe parents. 7. The cross objection filed by respondent no.l stands disinissed. 8. In fhe result, the appeal is aUowcd in part. The impugaed order dated 24.11.2006 is modified to fhc above cxtent No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Qiiddusi Judge Sd/- prashant Kumar Mishra Judge