s'l"'^'%sgJ5S!>^ aiSKWSIW?~"?''"'"'"'m '°~'>a!«Ma^^ :lN;TNE.^N'Bl.E::lHl^tt|®Ol»T^^:M APPELLANT RESPONDENTS ^lk^-n^'^.^' ^..y^'y ^.-.....•••""^^' »s^yr: M ^'^^^^^^^g's'S^y I.A.tC)No.- 6// ^^-g THE ORIENTALINSlTRANCECOntPA^X LIMITED, TlfROUGH DIVISIONAE OTFICE, JAIt ROAD, MADEEMA BUII.DING, RAIPVR, DISTT.- «AIPtFR G.G. :: .: \ ' • ' • VrS. '; • •' •,: • ' :11:.'' .^ ^ SMT. PARAMJEiET KAUR AGE ABOUT 34 YRS., W/0 LAfTE PAL SINGH, VEERUSINGHAGEABOUT 15 YRS., .d,KU.BABYAGEABOU?Tl3¥RS., KU.POOJASINGHAGEABOUTltY&S. ^BOVE RESPONDENT N0 -2 T04 ARE SON ANI) DAIJGHTER OF, KATKEfe -LATE PAL SINGH, : ' . ;: ,i^,^ ^ESPONDENTS.'N6;-.2:^T0^;4.,:'%IN^ THROUGH GUARDIAN MOTHER SNt'r. PARAMJEET KAUR, ALL RiESIDENT OF LAIiHAGARH, PITHORA.OIgTRrct-RAIPURC.G. ^ HIRALAL RATHIYA AGE ABOllT^ ^ '^: :'¥RS.' S/0:l'SBtRr'CH;A:NDAN, SlNeH RATHIYA, RESIDENT OF RAlKiERA, THANA & TAHSIL - GHAR&BfOllA, DISTRICT.-RAIGARHG.G. ^ SMT. FARJANA TAMSIL AGE ABOUT 35YRS.W/0-AKfTTAM:SIL,;:'Y;,:;.:. H. N0.- 112/1230, RAMANMANDIR FAFADIH,RAIWJR,t>ISTRICT-RAIPtJR C.G. , , :' • 1.,--. :• :-..'-•.• •::::.^.1:.'::^ .:AP]PEAL,UNKER SE<:'TlC)N,::l'7^()FMQTC»R:^EHICLEI^CTil9881 APPEALYALUEDRs.7,27,000/-(APPEALBYlNSURANGE).^l..,'.. COM] NSATl6NCLAlMEDBl^ORETRlBtrlS^BRs.l8,50i()Ot(/- A'WARDEDAMOUNTBYTRIBUNALRs.7,27^000/- ..21 ^; :-sw-SiS^fiSsssgisSS^igSi:»-s'^^^^LrS. ^s-^^^^^ra|^s^y^ l<pti§ v;iS2.i-i-1""^ | ,-"r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'bte Shri I.M. Quddusi, J. & Hon'ble Shrj Prashant Kumar Mishra. J. APPELLANT RESroNDENTS MAfClNo.61of2008 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Versus Smt. Paramjeet Kaurandothers. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for tte appellant. Shri Sanjay Agravral, counsel for respondent No. 1. Shri Shlvendu Pandya, counsel for respondent No.7. ORALORDER (23/03/2011) Following oral order of I. M. Quddusi. J. the Court was passed by This appeal has been flled againstthe impugned award dated 07/10/2007 passed by XI Additional lyiotor Accident Claims Tribunal, (F.T.C.), Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 37/2007 by the appellant/Oriental Insurance Company LimitBd in so far as it relates to quantum part only. 2. Undisputedly, the appellant was granted permission uncter Section 17& ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. 3. Brief facts of the case, as per the version of the claimants, are that the claimants are widow and children of deceased Pal Singh. On 12A)2/2007 at about 5-6 p.m. in ttie evening deceased was going from village BarodkalC to mines for loading coal in truck bearing registration No. MH 31/AP/5752 of Cattuck Fed Carrier Transport Nagpur. where trucks were standing in queue. Deceased got down from the truck and witti the help of his partner driver was keeping the truck in proper side, at that time Dumper bearing registration No. C.G. 04/J/4736 being driven rashly and 'ri^ wiy,w y - ^ — negligently by ite driver while overtaking the truck dashed the deceased Pal Singh and was cmshed under the front wheete. He suffered grievous injuries on his neck, ears and head and he was admitted to K.G. Hospitel, Raigarh for freatment. During treabnent on 14/02Q007 Pal Singhdied. He used to eam Rs,4,(XX)/- per month. Claimants have claimed compensatton ofRs.18,50,000/-. 4. It is alleged that the deceased was the truck driver and was getting Rs. 4,0001- per month and during traveling he was getting Rs.100/- per day for expenses, therefore the annual income comes to Rs.^.OO)/-. The expenses during traveling cannot be counted towards income. The claimants are four in number and therefore as laid-down in the case of Saria Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi TransportCorporatlon and another, reported in (2W9) S S.C.C. 121, % ofthe total income is liable to be deducted towards personal living expenses, therefore after deducting the same the remainder would be Rs.^,000/- as annual toss of dependency. Since the deceased was 45 yeare old at the time of accident a multiplier of 14 as setUed in Saria Verma's (supra) case woukl be applicable and therefore after applying this multiplier the total toss of dependency comes to Rs. 5.04.000/-. Besides this the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 5,00)/- for funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate, the widow is entitled to get Rs.5,(XX)/- for toss of consortium and remaining three children of the deceased are entttted to get Rs. 5.000/- each for loss of love and affection. Thus, total towards other heads comes to Rs.30,OX)/- and after adding ttiis amount towards toss of dependency the total compensation comes to Rs.5,34,000/-,therefore the claimants are entitled to get Rs.5,34,000/-. The quantum fcced by ttie Tribunal is in our opinion excessive and the same is modified to the above extent. V5- \. \. \. •\ . ~ 5 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, the impugned award is modified to the extent that the claimante are entiUed to get total compensation of Rs. 5,34,000/-. Besides this, they would be entitted to get annual simple interest @ 9% per annum from thedateof filingof the claim petition till its payment is made. Out of the above amount, Rs.1,75,(XX)/- will be kept in the fbced deposit in Nationalized Bank in the name of claimant No.3 Ku. Baby for a period of SK yeare, further Rs.1,75,0(K)/- would also be deposited in the Nationalized Bank in fixed deposit in the name of claimant No.4 Ku. Puja for a period of ten years. In Uie name 6f clajmant No. 2 Veem Singh Rs.1,00,000/- will be deposited for a period of six years and the remaining amount shall be paid in cash to claimant No.1 the widow of the deceased. The amount which has already been deposited shall be adjusted to the above compensation. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge