~" _ \_ V‘ s ‘ ‘ I.'wl.x~wwc2x iv w W IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR [CHHATTISGARH] Misc.A99ea1 NJ.921‘OF 2005 APPELLANT The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. }N’SURANCE Malviya Nagar, Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Biharilal s/o Sahukar Yadav, y’aged about 29 years, r/o Gram— : .. Karesara, RS. 85 Tehsil—Mungeli ~ District-Bilaspur (C.G.) \9 / ’2. Tirathram s/o Dukaluram \r Verma, aged about 35 yéars, Occupation—Driver (Truck No.CG— O7C/ 1 150), r/ o Supela-Bhilai, District—Burg (C.G.). /3’. Smt. Sutjeet Kaurw/o Sardar ’Mahima Singh, aged about 46 years, Owner (Truck No.CG— 07C/1150, r/o 44/B, Transport Nagar, Bhilai (C.G.). v” APPEAL U S 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE AWARD ORDER DATED 11 8 2005 PASSED BY THE \JSECOND ADDITIONAL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL [FTC],MUNGELI, DISTRICT BILASPUR IN C.T. NOFf05/2004 I \/ W . V ___.____..____.____—___._—~ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR / M. A. No. 1326 of 2005 Appellant The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Varsus Respondents Biharilal 8L others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon’ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 85 Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Gautam Khetrapal and Shri Avinash Chandra $ahu, Advocates for the respondent N0. l. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 1 1‘11 day of January, 201 1 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. 1. This‘appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company on the ground of quantum against the impugned award dated 11.8.2005, passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Mungeli, District — Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 105/2004, awarding a sum of Rs. 4,96,600/—. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant had got permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the Court below vide order dated 20m June, 2005 and the question of quantum is only under challenge in this appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the lower Court record as well as the findings given in the impugned award. 0% 4. Brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 22.9.2004 the respondent No.1/c1aimant was returning from his in-law’s house along with his wife Sati Bai by a cycle. When they reached near Tesuva Nala, the truck, bearing registration No. C.G. O7-C/ 1150, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the non—applicant No.1 hit the cycle. As a result of this accident Sati Bai fell down on the road and her head and left hand were crushed by the wheel of the truck. She was taken to the hospital but she succumbed to the injuries. The offence of the incident Was registered at Police Station Mungeli under Sections 279 and 304‘A of the Indian Penal v Code‘ The claimant, being husband of the deceased, filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 12,80,000/ — under various heads. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, having regard to the facts and evidence on record held that the claimant is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,96,600/— along with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of the application i.e. 26.10.2004 till the payment is made. 7. The deceased was the wife of the claimant. The claimant has stated in his statement that he used to go along with his wife for selling vegetables in the market. Therefore, it cannot be said that after death of the wife, the husband would not go.to sell vegetables in the market. If we calculate the minimum wages, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 3000/- and after deducting a 1/3rd as expenses for personal living the amount comes to Rs. 24,000/- per annum. But it cannot be presumed that the . husband would not be earning'anything, which he was earning at i ‘ the time when he used to go to sell vegetables along with his Wife. Thus, if we deduct further Rs. 6000/— the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 18,000/—. In the instant case wherein the age 0f the Wife was about 25 years and the age 0f the claimant was about 29 years, in accordance with the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anotherl the multiplier of 17 is applicable. Therefore, applying the multiplier of 17, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 18,000 X 17 = 3,06,000/—. Besides this, under the other heads, we award Rs. 5000/— towards funeral expenses, Rs. 5000/~ towards loss of estate and Rs. 5000/- towards loss of consortium to the claimant, the total of which comes to Rs. 15,000/~. Thus, we award a total sum of Rs. 3,21,000/- as compensation to the claimant towards loss of dependency and under other heads. The amount of compensation shall carry simple interest at the rate of 7 1/2 % per annum from the date of the application till payment is made. 8. The amount of compensation is reduced to the above extent. Rest of the conditions of the award shall remain intact. 9. The appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. No order as to costs. 10’ If the amount awarded by the Tribunal has been paid it will be open for the Insurance Company to recover back the difference of amount from the claimant. 'l‘hakur 0 1 (2009)6 SCC 121 , Sdf- ' Qt ”l.M.Quddusi ‘ Sd/~ , Judge ‘ T Prashant Kumar Mishra r r 1 Judge