sae y IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C) N0. 1 '2-<5 /2007 •i,?iJl^'S» DiSiEa- APPLICANTS: • l.MeluRam,S/oRakshaRam,aged ^e.t-fltfVIS^T.) about 40 years, /!<- ^. Mangleea Bai, W/o Shri Melu Ram aged about 35 years, Both Resident Matiyari, Thana- Seepat, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS NON-APPLICANT : —;^1.Shri Umesh Kumar Barman, S/o '- ^j Megh Nath Barman, R/o Koshrangi, Thana- Kharora, Ditt- Raipur C.G. V./^'**'/ ~—————Driver <3/vif^f ./ ^2. M/S S.K.P. Enginiars and associat 1 CVXf%-y?' "" Transport Nagar, Korbe, Ditt- Korba )A^r C-G-' ^------Owner •••"' A \ A" y .^r- The Baiaj Alliance General /* ^?s\y ..••''.-,fs\y ~ Insurance Company, Shiy Mohan J^'fy .-• Bhavan, Vidhan SabhaRoad, Pandri, •^/y Raipur(C.G.) t?' —— Insurance Company \^^' MEMORANDUM OFAPPEAL UNDER SECTION-173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACTJ988 FOR ENHANCEMENT OF THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT o^"- 3^ST '^l^lci^, ^Tfl'H'ltS, (sicilti^t. an^CT 'WK (lyf^i^r) 3(1^1.?5T R-li^i wnsn^T •sw f^irar ^flff sniw chi^Fd^Ti-r TTP:RTf ^r fi1cet '^'RTC i73ifipT3i7^r HI6H COURT OFCHHArrtISGARH AT BILASPUR M.Ag^tO. 1^0/2007 (Appeal under Section 173 of (Sinqle BenchLl-ton'ble Mr. t(ie Motor Vehicle Act, 1988) rustice Dhirendra Mishra) Appellants (Claimants) 1. Melupam, 5/o Raksha Ram, aged about 40 y^ars. 2. Manc agedl Both re^ Districtl Vs Non-aDDlicants Present; Mr. Sameer Singh, Advocate for t| None for respbndent No.l & 2, tho|i Mr. Sachin Singh Rajput, Advocat^ leen Bai, W/o Shri Melu Ram, about 35 years. idents of Matiyari, Thana Seepat, Bilaspur (C.6.) ' Umesh Kumar Barman, S/o Megh Barman, R/o Koshrangi, Thana ra, Distt. Raipur (C.6.) .K.P. Engineers and Associate port Nagar, Korbe, Distt. Korba, 1. 5hri Nath[ Khard 2. M/s^. Tranj C.6. (Owner) 3. The Bajaj Alliance Seneral Insurance Comp|any, Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabh|a Road, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Insyrance Company eappellants. igh served. for respondent No.3. ^ ti> 3:SET ^|i)W<<, aiT{l<1'|(S, |s|^|<H^< l? MIM^I **<!<* an^?r IBI% (ipf^g^iT) sn^r.wfsTHi' WI3IRW WTO7 TOIRFC'gftg sii^r 'miCT'ill tniRff lf •f%I^ tf»|^|< ^7 3lfgTf SfI^T Oral OMer (20.7.; The appellants/claimants ha'| the award dated 16.1.2006 passed Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Bi| whereby learned Claims Tribut Rs.1,69,500/- to the parents of dj years, who died in a motor veh involving Maruti Suzuki Car be^ 12/D/5645 owned by respondent and insured by respondent No.3 atj The only ground urged by le{ is that the tribunal has awardedl the compensation by applying 1/3 from the notional incomel assessed at Rs.15,000/-, whereasl matter of Manju I3evi Vs. Mu^ ACJ 99 (SC) dealing with the aif:' child, has applied the multipli^i deduction. It is also argued thatj 2)007) ^e preferred this appeal against jby learned 9 Additional Motor laspur in Claim Case No.6/2006 |ial has awarded a sum of djeceased Savitri, a child aged 7 jcle accident dated 16.12.2005 |ring registration number CG- |slo,l, driven by respondent No.2 Ithe relevant time. irned counsel for the appellants the above sum after assessing of 15 and after deducting of the deceased, which was the Hon'ble Apex Court in the iafir Paswan reported in 2005 :cidental death of 13 years old of 15 without making any apart from loss of dependency mul'tt'plier ^e^ ^|<.)]<?iq, giTfly'ie, (sj^iy^ I? NIMri! *N1+ sn^r WK (^cjf^si^) •OT^T.W R-fi'* WTSII^I 'SKW ^nWtlfOT 3IT^5T ':t'l<(I<1<ill 'WRff if fs^S Tf^R^R '^siRnsii^i [the tribunal ought t6 have awardec |of company. On the other hand, learned Ijust compensation has been aw< ISecond Schedule of the Motor Ve| Act'), as per Section 163A the sam|i and theeofre, no interference is the matter of New India Assurat and Ors reported in 2007 SAR (C( It is not in dispute that preferred by the claimants under reads thus;- "163A. Speciat provisio|ns compensation on structu^ Notwithstanding anything cj< any other law for the instrument having the forcj motor vehicle or the authoiti to pay in the case of death| due to accident arising ou-| the compensation towards loss ^espondent-insurer submits that frded in accordance with the hicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the within the structured formula (alled for. Relianceis placedon ice Co. Ltd. Versus Satendar tvil) 1. -he instant claim petition was Section 163A of the Act, which as to payment of id formula basis.- (1) intained in this Act or in •ime being in force or of law, the owner of the ized insurer shall be liable or permanent disabtement of the use of the motor TS^ -^WW^, (Sn{lyJI(S, Rlc'il'M^ sn^w ^ra? (ijcif^^) h SII^I.^T R-ti'ii wiT<flK?r fsw ci'ii^[^i41'f tirq^ff ^ ti^t "<ffli-i;zR i? siRrT aii^r vehicle, compensation, as Schedule, to the legal heirs may be." Indicated in the Second !or the victim, as the case In the matter of Manju bev| the judgment of Hon'ble Suprem^ State Road Trans. Cor-pn. V. Tr] A.C.J. 831 in which it has beenh^ "It was rightly clarified departure from the multip\ that section 110-B, Mo\ (corresponding to (1), Motor Vehicles Act, 1% 'Just' compensation since accepted method for 4 payment of just compens^ which brings uniformity andf all over the country' In the matter of Satendar] while considering the compen|; (supra) there is a reference to ^ Court in the matter of U.P. ilok Chandra reported in 1996 Wthus; ^that there should be no ^er method on the ground tor Vehicles Act, 1939 of section 168 \88) envisaged payment of ^he multiplier method is 'termining and ensuring \tion as it is the method certainty to awards made the presdpt provision [Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court ation payable to the legal d-cd '<11<1||C'><1|, ®Tfl+)'l(S,fe|<7iiy^< -z^ sn^?r Trass ('pf^g^tT) 3II^I.^T fs-licb wnaiR^r sBtiw ?'sirat'?fe 3n^i CM'4T<Tl41l 'tIR^ff^ ^^ ^T^R ^TsiRriTan^r 'epresentatives of d child aged ? years who died in a motor /ehicle accident, after considerin^ various judgments delivered From time to time, has redujsed the compensation from ^s.3,40,000/- to Rs.1,80,000/- wi|t-h interest ©7.5% from the late of filing of petition. Taking into consideration th ISection 163A of the Act and at the claim petition was under further considering that the compensation has been assessed jn accordance with the Second Schedule of the Act after makinjg deduction of l/3rd from the notional income, this Court is of justice would be served if t the opinion that the ends of ie award is enhanced from 4 Rs.1,69,500/- to Rs.2,00,000/- wifh interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition. Accordingly, the appeal is ijiartly allowed and an additional sum of Rs.30,500/- is awarded to|the claimants in addition to the amount already awarded passed psy the tribunal. The insurance company shall deposit with the |tribunal this additional amount within one mohth from today. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge GRPRJ— FS/246—2/2007 — 50.000.