IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARHt tc^ MISC. APPEALtNO. <33 /200^z-of; ^'^' Appellants ^l. Sudhir Jaiswal, S/o Jainarayan Jaiswal, Aged about 28 years, R/o Ward No.21, Main Road Chikhli, District - Buldhana (Maharastra) 2. Smt. Shalini Jaiswal, W/o Ashok ^ Jaiswal, R/o Ward No.21, Main Road Chikhli, District - Buldhana (Maharastra) Versus ^Respondents Shakunbai, W/o Late Shri Ram ^ ^ Devdas, Aged about 32 years. 2. j Sandhiya Bai, D/o Late Shri Ram Devdas, Aged about 17 years. 3-^Sumanbai, D/o Late Shri Ram Devdas, Aged abottt 14 years. ^ 4.4^-Sunita, D/o Late Shri Ram Devdas, Aged about 11 years. "Neha, D/o Late Shri Ram Devdas, Aged about 8 years. ^ Suraj Bai, W/o Late Shri Garibdas, ^> Aged about 49 years. (Respondents 2 to 5 being minors are being represented by their mother Shankun Bai. All above Respondents are r/o Village Manki, P.S. Somni, Tahsil Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 7. y^ The New India Insurance Company Limited - Through its Branch Manager, Nandini Road, Power House, District Durg (C.G.) '^ ^IIS.S-.SS^^ MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 ,^€ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M.A. (QNo. 33 of 2007 Appellants Sudhir Jaiswal & another Versus Respondents Shakunbai & others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ Shri P. R. Patankar, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Jitendra Gupta, Advocate for the respondents No.l to 6. Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No. 7. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 22nd day of February, 2011 ) ^ Per I. M. Quddusi, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants (owner 85 driver) on the ground of liability as well as quantum against the impugned award dated 15.9.2006, passed by the First, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No. 19/2003, awarding a total sum of Rs. 4,29,000/-, holding the present appellants liable to pay the amount of compensation. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the respondents at length and perused the lower Court record as well as fhe findings given in the impugned award. 3. According to the statement of the development officer (Shri Keval Singh, D.W. 1 on behalf df the non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company) the amount for insurance policy was received and receipt was issued at 15.55 hours (3.55 p.m.) on 7.11.2001 and the policy was issued at 15.55 hours (3.55 p.m.) on 8.11.2001. The risk of the vehicle starts after 24 hours from the time of deposit of premium, wherein physical verification of the vehicle is not done. It is not disputed that the accident of the vehicle in question had taken place at 1.30 p.m. on 7.11.2001 and thereafter the amount was paid at 3.55 p.m. on the same day. Therefore, the accident cannot be covered by that policy premium which was paid after the time of occurrence of the accident. Therefore, so far as the contention of the appellants in regard to liability of the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation is rejected. 4. In regard to the question of quantum, we have seen the findings of the Claims Tribunal and perused the evidence on record. The deceased Ramdeo Das was a driver, hismonthly Jncome was assessed as Rs. 3000/- and the yearly income as Rs. 36,000/~. After deducting l/3rd towards personal expenses the yearly dependency was assessed as Rs. 24,000/-. Taking the age of the deceased as 35 years the multiplier of 16 was applied, thereby awarding a sum of Rs. 3,84,000/- towards loss of dependency. Further, total Rs. 45,000/- has been awarded under the other heads. There were SK dependents of the deceased (widow, four minor children and mother) therefore according to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another1 we areof the opinion that there should have been l/4th deduction on the personal.and living expenses of the deceased. Thus, we do not find any sub'starice in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant on the question of quantum. However, we feel that the (2009)6 SCC 121 F- <MfsB<;£x ^,:^^ "^ ^: .-...^...- ¥. '-^^-""^^ j \.^y Tribunal has mistakenly awarded Rs. 5000/- also to the widow under the head mentioned at serial No. 2 ( 5000 x 6) (^ft^T ^t 3>IT?TT ^t ^Tf^T ^ ^i 1ET^^ ^t 5,000/—^). ). Likewise, we feel that the penal interest imposed at the rate of 9% per annum is not proper and it should not have been imposed. Therefore, we set aside that part of the award and direct that the claimants are entitled for the total amount of Rs. 4,24,OOO/- ( Rs. 3,84,000/- + Rs. 40,000/-) as compensation along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum, only, from the date of the application. Rest of the conditions of the award by the Tribunal shall remain intact. The appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. No order as to costs. Sd/- f.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar JMishra Judge ^ Thakur