c^ •>( IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURB, AT BILASPUR CHHATHSGARH APPELLANT :- (Insurer/N.A.No-3) ^•^. 7>^^ ^ .^> |aBrf< ^- ^ ^- ^ ^ •y^ ^^<.. Ty ,h. M.A.C.No%0 /2010 National Insurance Limited Branch Rajnandgaon Rajnandgaon (C.G) Authorised Signatory Insurance Conipany Liinited, Divisional Office: B-1 Taha Coinplex, Ring Road II, Priydarshani Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G). VBRSUS Company District Trough National RESPONDENTS:'-1. Jagesar S/o Sadi Ram Lodhi, {Claimants-R-l&2^ aged about 45 years. ^-2. Belsiya Bai W/o Jageshar Lodhi aged about 40 years. Resps. No. 1 & 2 are residing at village- Annya Navagaon P.S. and Tehsil —Dongargarh District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Driver) <?-3. Kartik Lodhi S/o Girdhari Lodhi R/o viUage Vicharpur P.S. Khairagarh District Rajnandgaon (C.G). (Owner) ^4. Kanhaiya Lal Talreja S/o Ramesh Lal Talreja R/o Lalbag Sindhi Calony, Rajngindgaon District Rajnandgaon (C.G) Presently Residing at Nand Lal Hard wear Imani Chouk, Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon (C.G). '^ APPBAL U/S 173 OF THB MOTOR VEHICLB ACT,1988 x' OF HON-'BLE MR. & jjQ^'BLE Mll.NAWAl. KSSIIORE AeARV^AL^.11. Non-appUcant No,3 R.esp^iideiits Clalmants, drlver & owner Vs Nati'ona! Insurance Company Lirnlted Jagesa r & others Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate for the appeliant, Mr, R,S. Baghe!, Advocate for the respondents'Nos, 1 & 2, ORDEil fura st Qctefeer, 15SJ. J; 1, T? 3. Hea rd. The . appeiiant'". insurance company has .filed this m Isceiianeous appea! against the award dated 08,03.2010 passed In Ciaim Case No, 7/2009 whereby the learned Addltiona! Motor Accident C!alms Tribuna I, Dongergarh, Dist. Rajnandgaon (CG) (for short 'the trJbunaS') has ailowed the clalm petition of respondent No,l & 2/claima nts-pa rents of the deceased and awarded a surn of' Rs«3,25,000/"a as compensatjon. Permission ynder Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to contest the ciaim on a II avaUabie defences was granted to t?ie appeIJa nt-insurance company, However, the appeilant has fJJed fche instant appea! oniy on the question of quantum. Facts of'the case, as projected in Parara2 of the impugned a^vard, a re that on the date af incident i.e» 22.1,2009, the deceascd NJkku @ Nikesh Kurnar was goiog to the house of hls materna! grandfather. When he reached near Sinha Klrana Stores, a dumper bearlng .regJstration number CG09K- ZC-OIZO, drlven in rash and negligeot manner by non' appllcant drJver, hit the deceased and thereafter .turn.ed turtie, On account of overturning of the dumper, the deceased came under the dumper and materia! !oaded in it and died on the spot. The appeliants, who a re oarents of the deccased and aged about .45 & 40 years respectivejy, have 5. 8. 9. ciaimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,80,OOO/- on the ground they were totaily dependent on their son and on account of hls death, they suffered mentai and financiai loss, The tribunal, after considering the issues framed by It, ailowed the claim appiication of the respondent No.l & 2 and awarde.d a compensation of R.s. 3,25,000/- under varioys heads» We hava heard iea'rned counsei for the parties and perused t.he impugned award as aJso the record of the tribunai beiow. The iearned tribuna! has assessed the annuai income of the deceased at Rs,36,-OOQ/- and after deducting l/3rcl towards persona! expenditure of the deceased, fixed the ioss of income at Rs.24,000/-. Further, the. ciaims trlbuna!, considering the age o.f the father of the deceased as 46 years, has appiied mylti'piler of 13 and caJculated the compensation .at Rs. 3,25/000/-. In the ma.tter of Wlarsages', S.s1.T,C, -vs- Thomas reported in (S 9941 2 SCC 176, which h 3 s been foiiowed in -ifs- Transport Cos'fsoration reported in (2009) the Hon''b!e Supreme Court has held that the choice of muitipller Is determined by the of the deceased or that of the claimants whlchever Js hlgher ('see para 13). lt has been aiso said (vide Para 17) that usuaJly in Engiish Courts t.he operative muJtiplier rarely exceeds 16 as maximum and this wili com e down accordlngjy as the age of the deceased person (or that of the dependants whichever Js hlgher) goes up. this, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sa rla'Verma's case (supra) has heid that in a case where the deceased was bachelor a nd the parents a re ciaimants; normally 50% is deducted as personai and iiving expenses because Jt is assumed that a bachelor wouid tend to spend more on him as seff maintenance, On careful examinatJon of the record we find that in the ciaim petition age of the appeilants i.e. father & mother of the deceased, at the time of accident was reported to be 45 & 40 years rcspectlveiy, Date of accident was 22,1.2009 and the cJaim petition was flled on 4.2.2009. However, the appeiiant No.l in his statement recorded on 4.1.2010 i.e. about one year after the date of accident, the appeiiant' No.l ''":<• has stated that he Js aged 46 years and cn the basis of 'this statement of app.eJiant No.l, the trlbuna! has treated the age of appeliant No.l as 46 years and appiied the rnuitJplier of 13, Whereas, it Js undlsputed fact that at th@ tlme of accident the age of appeJiant No'.l was 45 ycars and therefore, the correct muitipijer wouid be 14, as given In the Verena (Smt.) and others -vs- Oeih's Transpott Cos'poratson anothep reported Jn (2009) 121. Further, the deceased was bachelor and aged about 18 years,- t'herefore^ th@ trjbunai^ instead of deducting 1/3 towards personal a.nd Jiving expenses of the deceased, shouid have deducted 50%, as hefd by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarta Verma's case (supra). 10. Accordingly, If we deduct 50% from the annuai income of the deceased i.e. . Rs. 36,000/Ba, as assessed by the tribunal, the ioss of income would come fco Rs.18,000/- p.a. and a.fter appiylng muitipiier of 14 to it, the total ioss of dependsncy would come to Rs.2,52,000/- (Rs.18000x14). Further, the deceased was aged about 18 years, therefore, towards !oss of love and affection the appeliants are entitied for Rs.10,000/- each. The ctaimants are aiso entitied for Rs.l0,000/-- each towards ioss of estate and Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the tota! com pensation comes to Rs.2,97,000/-. 11. Therefore, we modify the award dated 8.3.2010 to the extent indicated above and now the cia ima nts/respondent No.l & 2 shail be entitled to get R5.2,9.7,000/Ba as compensation aiong with interest @ 7.5% from the date of appJication till the payment is m'ade. Rest of the conditions imposed by the tribunal shali remain intact. However, whatever amount has been deposited by the appeila nt-insura nce company shaii be adjusted towards the amount of compensation as fixed by this Court. 12, The appeal Js aiiowed in pa rt to the extent indicated above^ ^__ _——-- —— Rosha n/- Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge