gg^sfe '*-' -. ua' ii'3 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURfC.G.1 M. A. fa NO. ^TC, QF 2006 APPELLANTS CLAIMAINTS ^ ^ ^ .•• -* .. -*~ ^L^V /w ^ ^ f .^'^ / ^' ^// Smt, Saraswati Sahu Widow of Late Shri Narayan Sahu, aged about 48 years; Ku. Damyanti D/o Late Shri Narayan Sahu, aged about 21 years; Ku. Devkiran D/o Late Shri Narayan Sahu, aged about 19 years; ••? Ku. Ushakiran D/o ' Late Shri Narayan Sahu, aged about 17 years; Mukesh Kumar Son of Late Shri Narayan Sahu, aged about 16 years; Mulshankar Son of Late Shri Narayan Sahu, aged about 14 years; Roshan Kumar Son of Late Shri Narayan Sahu, aged about 14 years; The appellant No.4 to 7 are rriinors, through their natural guardian mother Smt. Saraswati Sahu Widow of Late Shri Narayan Sahu. RESPONDENTS 1. All residents of Village Koliyar, Post Bhakhara, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.). VERSUS Chandulal Son of Shri Ratiram Nagrachi, aged about 33 years, Resident of Danipara Kurud, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.). 2. / Santosh Dhruv Son of Shriram Dhruv, aged about 30 years, Resident of Sarojani Chowk Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.). 3./\ ^The Uhited India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Raipur, Through: The Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Jail Road, Kachahari Chowk Raipur (C.G.). MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 (2) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 i^ -^- HIGH COURT OECHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.fONo. 678 of 2006 APPELLANTS CLAiMANTS RESPONDENTS Smt. Saraswati Sahu, widow of Late Narayan Sahu and others. Versus Chandula! and others. Miscellaneous Appea! Under Section 173 of ths Motor VehictesAct.1988 Hon'ble Mr Juslice R.N.Chandrakar Shri Adstya Kumar, counsel for appellants. Shri Sanjay S. Agravva!, counsel for respondent .3. ;23.11.2011 Per N.K. Aaarwal, J This is claimants' appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Additionai Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunat, Dhamtari (for short 'the Tribunal') in c!alm case No. 173/2005 vide award dated 30.10.2006. As against compensation of Rs. 18,00,000/- claimed by unfortunate Vi/idow and children of deceased Narayan Sahu by filing ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') for his death in the motor accident on 13.07.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs; 2,87,450/- to the clalmants aiong with interest @. 6% per annum from the 'date of fitlng of claim petition tiil its actual payment. The Tribunal; on a ciose scrutiny of the evidence led, held : CQllusion took place betv/een motor cycle bearing registration No.CG-OS/ZE/3935 being (Jriven by deceased Narayan Sahu and Jeep bearing reglstration NO.CG-05/ZA/2147 being driven by respondent No.1 - ChanduSal; deceased Narayan Sahu died on account of injuries sustalned by him In fhe said accident; accident had occurrsd due to rash and negligent driving of offendina vehlcle Jeep bearing registration No.CG-OS/ZA/2147 by its driver i.e. respondent No. 1 - Chanduial; respondent '°»! ^sl No. 3/insurance Company liabie for payment of compensation as It could not establish the violation of policy conditlons; and assessed and awarded aforementloned amount of compensation to the ciaimants along with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual payment. Learned counsel for the appeilants would submit: deceased Narayan Sahu was aged about 61 years at the time of accident, and, therefore, the Trlbunal has erred in applying multiplier of 5 whereas Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corooration and another reported In ^2009) 6 SCC 121 has prescribed the multlplier of 7 for the age group between 61 to 65 years. Thus, the Tribunai has fallen in error in awarding amount of compensation by app!ying multiplier of 5 only which deserves to be suitably enhanced. On the oSh.er hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3/ The Oriental insurance Company Limited, supported the award impugned and submitted, in the facts and circumstances of the case, compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation and does not call for any interference. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record including award impugned. The facts that the accident had occurred due to rash and negiigent driving of offending vehicle Jeep by its driver i.e. respondent No. 1 - Chanduial and the Insurance Company failed to establish the violatibn of policy condltions are now not in 8. The Tribuna! assessed the jncome of the deceased during service as Rs.11,715/- per month; after retireme.nt Rs.40,000/- per annum; assessed claimants' dependency for two years of remaining period of service as Rs.93,720/- per annum; Rs.26,670/- for the period after retirement; appiied the muitiplier of 2 for the period of service and assessed the compensation for two years as Rs.1,87,4W/- on account of loss of ''^y •^•£SiS«. % ^ , » '^.^'» >y 10. 11 12. dependency; and after multiptying the claimants' dependency of Rs. 26,670/- after his retirement by multiplier of 3, assessed the compensation as Rs.80,010/- and thus the Tribunal has assessed and awarded a tota! sum of Rs.2,67,450/- on account of ioss of dependency. The Tribunal has further av/arded Rs.10,000/ for loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses and thus the Tribunal has awarded a total sum Rs.2,87,450/- to the appeliants/claimants along wlth interest 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual payment. Looking to the age of deceased as 61 years at the time of accident, the multiplier of 7 would be appropriate in view of the dlctum of Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) (Supra) wherein the Supreme Court has prescribed the multipiier of 7 for the age group between 61 to 65 years. Therefore, the Tribunal has certainly erred in computing amount of compensation by apptying the multiplier of 5 only. Therefore, we propose to re-compute the amount of compensation by taking into consideration the muttiplier of 7 in place of 5. Admittedly, deceased Narayan Sahu was to retire from his services within a period of two years. Therefore, the Tribunal was correct In assessing claimants' dependency as Rs.93,720/- per annum for a period of two years and in awarding Rs.1,87,4^K)/- as compensation for the above period on-account of toss of loss of dependency. Nevsrtheless, the Tribuna! has certainly erred in appiying multiplier of 3 on!y in piace of 5 towards claimants' dependency of Rs.25,670/- after his retirement By multiplying the amount 'of claimants' dependency of Rs.26,670/- by multiplier of 5, the appel!ants/claimants would become entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,33,3507- on account of loss of dependency In place of Rs.80,010/- as awarded by the "ribunal. " 13. 14. 15. ^ The appellants/claimants are further awarded Rs.20,000/- on other heads and thus the claimants would become entrtled for a total sum of Rs. 3,40,790/- as compensation instead of Rs.2,87,450/- as awarded by the Tribunal. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants for enhancement of compensation is atlowed in part. The compensation of Rs.2,87,450/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,40,790/-. The appellants/c!aimants are further entitled to receive Rs. 53,340./- over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. Enhanced amount of Rs.53,340/- shail carry interest @ 6% per annum from the dats of filing of claim petition til! its actual payments. Award is modified to the above extent. Rest of the conditlons mentioned in the award shall remain Intact. The respondent No. 3/United Insurance Company Limited is granted three months time to deposit enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 53,340/- along with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of claim petition before the concerned Claims Tribunal. D/- 16. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawai Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge