.y- lt'l^%i» G^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEA^O. ^^ OF 2010 o ^ ^"1r^ Appellant Insurer Respondents Claimants- ^ vV W.^ ^ -^ A ~/yj^\ ^. ^«. ^' \y ^ briver/ Owner Versus 6 7. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Officeat Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri, Raipur. Smt. Anima Bai W/o Late Deepak Rai aged about 40 years Ku. Shradha Rai D/o Late Deepak Rai aged about 17 years Ku. Snigdha Rai D/o Late Deepak Rai aged about 12 Months Sidharth Rai S/o Late beepak Rai aged about 09 years bevdas Rai S/o Late Baidhnath Rai, aged about 65 Years. Smt. Tripti Rai W/o bevdas Rai/Aged about jB Years. Alt Respondents are R/o Villa9e Chote Kapsee P.S. + Th. Pankhajur District South Bastar Kanker (C.G.) (Respondent No. 02 to 04 are Minor They are Through Natural guardian Mother Smt. Anima Bai W/o Late Deepak Rai aged about 40 years. Prabhash Mahldar S/o Pranav ©Narayan Mahaldar Aged 24 years, R/o Village Bade Kapsee P.S. + Th. Pankhajur bistrict South Bastar Kanker C.G. MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 AGAINST THE ORbER/AWARD DATED 17.06.2010 PASSED IN C.T. N0. 43/2009 "BY LEARNED UPPER MOTOR ACCTbENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. (PTC) BHANUPRATPPUR SOUTH BASTAR KANKER (CG} PRESIDED OVER BY SHRI S. XESS. ^; HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH^BILASPUR r- .• DB: HON'BLE I.M. QUDDUSI & HON'BLEPRASHANT KUMARMt8HRA,JJ, M. A.tCl No. 959 OF 2010 Vs. MISCBLLANBOUS APPBAL U/8 173 OP THB MOTOR VBHICLES ACT.1988 APPBARANCB Mr. Abhishek Siaha, counsel for fhe appeUanf. Mr. Yogesh Chaadra, counsel for respoxident 1 to 5. QRDBRfORAJ,) (17.01.2011) Per I.M. OUDDUSL J. 1. This appeal has been filed by fhe Insuraiice Compaay agamst fhe award dafed 17.06.2010 passed by fhe Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tnbunal (F.T.C), Bhaaupratappur, District Kaaker (Soutfa Bastar, iri Claim CaseNo.43/2009 challengiag fhe quantum fixed by the Tribunal. 2. Brief facts of fhe case as per the version of fhe clauiian^are thaton 15.05.2009 atabout 3.45p.m., deceased DeepakRai alongwith Vijit @ Visluiu Haldar was travelmg on his Motor Cycle from Kapsi to Paiikhajur. On the way when he reached nearHaraagarh Dhabha, one new sold Bolero Jeep Chasis No.92 D 83637 Engine No. GA 94 D 11159 which was beiag driven by respondent no.7 (owner-cumL-dnver) dashed fhe niotorcycle ofDeepak Rai from. opposite side, as a result of which, he sustained serious iajunes on his APPELLANT Bajaj AUiaaz General Insirrance Compaay Limited RBSPONDENTS Siat Anima Bai aad ofhers ^ ^..^ 1 4; forehead, left fhigh aad chest He was immediately admitted ia Govt. Hospital, Pankhajur. However, lookiag to fhe gravity of mjuries, when he was beiag brought to Bhilai Hospital he died on fhe way. At fhe time of accident, the deceased was aged about 40 years. He was a Tailor aad was earaiag Rs.10,000/- per monfh by tailoring. The claimaats beiag dependents aiid legal representatives of the deceased have madeclauii to thetuneofRs.20,00,000/-onvarious heads. 3. The Tnbunal has held fhat fhe ofFendiag vehicle was iavolved ia fhe accident, in which, fhe deceased has died; respondent no.7 was haviag valid and eflTective driviag Ucense aad there was no violation of the poUcy conditions. The Tribunal has awarded a total corapensation of Rs.8,40,000/- which the claimaats are entitled to receive from. fhe uon-appUcaats joiatly or severaUy. 4. The Insuraace Corapaay has chaUenged fhe quaatuin of appeal by filing appUcation seekiag peraussion u/s 170 of the M.V. Act which has been rejected. We have perused fhe reason for rejection fhe said appUcation. It has been mentioned vide orderdated 29.10.2009 that while rejectmg the appUcation dated 29.10,2009, aaother non-appUcaat was contesting the case, But on the date of accident, it has been mentloned fhat fhe Insuraace Compaay was Uable to pay aad as sueh the case was not seriously contested by fhe non-appUcaxit. No witness has been produced by it Therefore, we are oftitie opmion that the appUcation u/s 170 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act was wrongly rejected. n ^ 5. Now comiag to flie question of quaatum, the deceased was a Master-Tallor aad fhe employee naoiely Pradeep Haldar who was also engaged by ttie deceased in his taLlormg shop has also been produced as A.W.3 The witnesses who were gettmg fheir clofhes stitched ia his shopwere also piDduced aad as such fhe iacoxne of fhe deceased was shown as Rs.15,000/- per month but fhe Tribunal has reduced tihie iacoine to fhe tune ofRs.6000/-. 6. Siace fhe clamiaats got success in gettfcag fhe nicoiae proved but fhe Tnbunal has reduced it to fhe extent ofRs,6000/- from fhe aUeged iacom.e aad fhe evidence was led ia support fhat fhe iacomie was approximately Rs.16,000/- per inonfh, we are of the opiaion fhat fhe income assessed by fhe Tribunal is not excessive. The Tribunal has calculated fhe annual income as Rs.72,000/- (Rs.6000 x 12) and has deducted ^4 towards personal aad living expenses aad fhus worked out the anaual loss of dependency as Rs.54,000/- (Rs.72,000 - 18,000 i.e.,l/4th). In Setrla Verma (SnsL) and others -vs- Delhi Treinsport Corporection and another reported in(2009) 6 SCC 121 the Supreme Court held that one-foiirth (l/4th) shoiild have been the standard deduction where fhe number of dependent family members is 4 to 6. Here ia fhe present case, fhe total claimaats bemg dependents of fhe deceased are 6, fherefore, the Tribunal has rightly deducted l/4th towards personal llviag expenses. Furfher, the Tribunal has adopted raultiplier 15 and as such worked out the total loss of dependency as Rs.8,10,000/- (Rs.54,000 x 15). In view of fhe inultiplier scale given ia para 40 of Sarla Verma's case, inultipUer of 15 is not on !iB l.-^ 7. higher side as ia ftie uistajat case, fhe deceased was aged about 40 years and was in. the age group of 36 to 40 years aad was ruiiuiag fhe tailor shop for fhe last 15 years. Therefore, fhe aoiount of conipensation awarded caanot be said to be excessive. There was no impediaient for fhe appellaat to produce fhe evidence ia rebuttal, but no evidence has been produced and fherefore, on fhe basis of fhe evidence of claimants, fhe assessment to the best of j'udgiaent was inade by fhe Tribunal. In view of fhe above, fhe appeal fails aad is dismissed. No order as to cost(s). However, fhe cross objections fiOled by fhe claitnaats are also dismissed as we have already held fhat fhe Tribunal has assessed fhe income to fhe best of its Judgiaent No order as to cost(s). Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Rao