h? <^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTJSGARH AT BILASPOR SJnale Bench : Hon'ble Shri DiliD Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. m./UC^Hb^77of20Q3 ^ Dhan Singh Chanclan & another versus Murharam and others ORDER •'i^; Postfor ^-09-2008 Sd/- DilipRaosahebDeshmukh Judge ^^ z- HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBSLASPUR Sjn<3le Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raos^heb Deshm Appelianfs Claimants Respondents Non-applicants M. A. (C.yNo.477/2008 1. Dhan Singh Chandan, S/o Late Jamdhar Chandan, Aged about 40 years, 2. Smt. Supati Chandan, W/o Dhan Singh Chandon, Aged about 38 years, Both above fesjdence of Kumharpara, Kondagaon, Police Station Kondagaon; DistrictBastar (C..G.) Versus ; 1. Murharam, S/o Cheturam Gond, Aged about 26 years, R/o Village Mudla, Potice Station Parasgaon, District Bsstar (C.G.) 2. Abdul Wahid, S/o Mohd. Farukh, R/o Rojgaripara, Kondagaon, Disfrict Bastar 3. The Orientai insurance Company Limited, Branch ;0ffice . Main Road, Jagdaipur, District Bastar (C.G.) 4. Hariial Yadav S/o Sukhdev Yadav, Aged about 22 years, R/o Kumharpara, Kondagaon, District Bastar (C.G.) 5. Nsrayan Dewangan S/o Dharam DewanganF R/o Arkaohhepadapara, Kondagaon, District Bastar (C. G.) Mjsceiianeous Appeal vnder Section 173 of the Motor VehicSes Act. Present :- - Shri V.A. Goverdhan, counset for the appeilants. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (Passed on this HT^ dav of September, 2008) Heard finaity. (2) This is claimanfs appeai for enhancement of compensation. The Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribuna!, F.T.C., Kondagaon (henceforth "the Tribunal") has n.Claim Case No.105/2007 ondated 28-12-2007 awarded compensation of Rs.1,78,400/- to the ctaimants for the death oftheir 19 year oid €L daughter in^vehicuiar accident. (3) Brieffacts are that on 17-02-2006, daughter ofthe claimants, Ku. Pramita, aged about 19 years, was travelling as a labourer in a Tractor bearing ~z— ^ Registration No.M.P.-25-B/2359 and Trotley driven by respondent No.4 herein. The said tractorwas dashed by Tata 709 vehicle bearing Registration No. MP-19-A/8471 driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. Ku. Pramila died due to the accident. Evidence was led by the ciaimants to show that Ku. Pramila was a trained potter and ateo used to work as a iabourer. The Tribunal assessed daily income of the deceased at Rs.100/-andtakin9workingdaysofthedeceasedinamonthtobe26,assessed monthfy income at Rs.2,600/-and assessed yearly income at Rs.31,200/-. it deducted 2/3rd i.e.;Rs.20,800/- from the yearly incQme towards personal expenses of the deceased and a^sessed ioss of dependency at Rs.10,400/- and appiying multiplier of 16 assessed ioss of dependency at Rs.1,66,400/-. In addition to this, the Tribunat assessed Rs.2,000/- towards funeraf expenses and Rs.10,000/- (Rs.5,000/- to each claimant) towardsloss of love andaffection.ln (this manner, the Tribunai awarded oompensatfon of Rs.1,78,400/- to the claimants. (4) ' Shri Vaibhav A. Goverdnan, iearned counselfor the appeltants/claimants raised cnly two grounds in 'this appeal. Firstly that while assessing ioss of dependency the Tribunat ought to have deducted only 1/3 from the annual income ofthe deceased towards her persona! expenses. Reliance was piaced on BiikSsh vwsu3 Umtedln^m InswQHce Compan^ jL/m/terf <& Anotfter, reported in 2008 AIR SGW 5040. LastSy, it was urged that thej Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation for ioss of estate. No other ground was urged. (5) On the other hand, Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counset for respondent No.2: argued in support of the impugned award that deduction of 2/3 towards personal income of the deceased was justified in view of the deciston of the Supreme Court of India in Donat Louis MachQdo & Othws Versus L. Ravmdra andOffter, 200(^f) T.AC.2W (S.C.). It was aiso urged that muitiplier of 16 adopted by the Tribunai was already on the higher side —^^ ;^/ i''!!';, ^- because the ctaimantswoutd have got thedeceased marriedwithin acouple^^ years and would have ceased to be dependant on the income.of deceased. (6) Having considered rival submissions, I have perused the recorcf; The insurer neither preferred an appeal against the award passed by the Tribunal nor Tiled a cross-objection against any finding recorded by the Tribunat. The claimants have led clinching evidenoe orai as well as documentary before the Tribunal to show that the deceased was a trained potter an.d would have eamed at least Rs.lOOA per day besides earning as a tabourer. tn my considere^^^ opinion, trte'Tribunal has rightty assessed the yearSy income of the cieceased at Rs.31,200/-. i (7) In Bilkjsh Vs- United India Insurance Cftrnpany Limited & Another (Supra), it was held that the deceased, who was a| bachelor would not/have spent morethan 1/3 ofhistotal income for personal useand restofthe amount earned byhim woutd have gone to the famiiy kitty. Therefore, deduoting 50% of his income towards personal expenses was notproper. So far as the case of DoHQtLotiis Machada &OthQFS Vef^us L. Rav/ndra a/iof Offter fSvpraJ relied by learned counsel forrespo-ndent No.S/insurer is ooncerned; in that case, the Apex Court had consideredthat the deceased would, besides his parents, be required to support hss own famity in future. Under these circumstances, it was held bythe Apex Court thatthe deceased would have spent at least 2/3 of the amount cn his own family and 1/3^ ofthe amount on the parents. (8) No straight jacket formula can be prescribed for deviating fromthe prescribed norm of deduction of 1/3 of4he income towards personal expenses of the deceased in the second schedute. The factsrand circumstances of each case woald determine whether deviation from the :prescribed norm under the second schedute isjustified or ncrt. In the present case, the deceased^^w rrfarried and had to support her parents. The deceased was the eidest daughter of the ciaimants and was iooking after her parents and other sibling from her • ^^ earnings as a potter and as a labourer. Tne claimant had stated specificaliy pn oath that the deceased was determined not to marry and being the eidest daughter to serve the family for the rest of her life. Therefbre in the above circumstance, the Tribunal was not justified in deducting 2/3rd bf annual income ofthe deceased towards personal expenses and ought not to have deviated from the prescribed norm and should have deducted onty 1/3rd of the total income towards personal expenses of the deceased. (9) The deceasea' was onty 19years old, when her life was cut short due to the unfortunate accideht, The claimant-parents were aged 40 and 38 years. Taking the average age of the ctaimants/^arents at |39, the multipiier of 16 adopted by the Tribunat being in conformity with the second schedule is proper. tn the facts-and circumstances, jt appears proper to av^rd a sum of Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of estate. Tbe yearly income of the deceased: as assessed by the Tribunat is Rs.31,200/-, deducting iy3rd i.e., a sum i 6f Rs.10,400/- towards personai expenses of the deceased, loss of yearly dependency is.assessed at Rs.20,800/-. Appiying muttiptier of 16, .total toss of dependency is assessed at Rs.3,32,800/-. Adding to this, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- to each ciaimants towards loss of love and affection, total compensation which shouid have been awarded by the tribunat is assessed atRs.3,47,300/-. (10) In the result, -the appeal is allowed. The compensation of/Rs.1,78,400/- awarded by the Tribunai is enhanced to Rs.3,47,300/-. After adjusting the amount already paid, if any, the/espondent No.S/insurance company shall also ^^ H^ 7Z€^^^^-^rl- be liable.to pay interest @ 6% per annum,from the date of application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehictes Act titl realisation of the amount df compensation. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Tumane