c.F' ^l IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC.APPEAL FC1 N0. b l^ /2009 !. • ii 't^5, 'KiIi MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR -^J/fHrCLE ACT. 1988 j- APPELLANT 2NSURER RESPONDENTS /Claimants / DRIVER J QWNER 7- ^ ^ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Company Limited, Registered office: ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla, Complex, Mumbai, 4000 51, through ^<L'l*n1 its Legal Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, 3 Floor, G.E. Road, Raipur(C.G.). VERSUS Anup Ram Sahu S/o Late Shri Jatgfam Sahu , Aged about 50 Years Smt. Pelee Bai W/o Shri Antf) Ram Sahu , Aged about48Years Ku. Nitu Sahu, D/o Shri Anup Ram Sahu,Aged about 20 Years Ku. Laxmi Sahu, D/o Shri Anup Ram Sahu, Aged about 18 Years Ku. Deepa Sahu, D/o Shri Anup Ram Sahu, Aged about 16 Years Neeraj . Sahu, S/o Shri Anup Ram Sahu, Aged aboutl4Years Respondent No. 4 & 5 minor represented through father / Respondent no.l Respondent No. 1 to 6 R/0 Village Tela, P.S. Gobra, Navapara (Rajim), District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Mukesh Kumar Jaheray, S/o Shri Bhajan Lal Jaheray Aged about 30 Years , R/o Mahalpara, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) Smt. Savita Dubey W/o Shri Shash Narayan Dubey, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Paragaon, P.S Arang, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ^s. ^"' ^- / \.c«"' CLAIM IN APPEAL VALUED AT RS. 5.42.131/- Appellant Respondents MI®HCOURT 01? CHHATTISe^RH AT BIUtSn® OIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE AAft. I.M.OU&&USI & HON'BLE MR.6ULAM MXNHAIU&BIN J.T. M.A. k] No.6^/2009 ICTCT Lomborct&erwral Ijiauraiee CbmponyLtd. Vs Anup Rom Sahu and others Present: ^Mr: Saurabh Shn'ma, Adwcate for the appellant. Jone for respondents No.l to 6 thoughsewei:!. ORE»B»(Oran (21't Junc, 2011) IM. Quddusi. J; ^•y 1. Challenge in the instant appeal, fited by the oppelkurt' Insunmce Gompany, (s to the OMiard dated 24.2.2009 passed by the teamed AddrWonal Motor Accident Claims Tritxmal, 6ariyab<mdh, Oistrict ftaipur (C6) m Claim Case No.81/2008. 2. Facts of the case, in nutshell, <re that the claimants have filed a cfaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehictes Act, t988 (for short- *the Act') claiming compensation of Rs.17,90,000/- for the deuth ®fdeceased 1-tenwnt m the motor "dccident which took ploce on 31.8.2008 when the deceaBed was ctashed by the offending truck bearing re9istrotion number C604-&-7849 on account of rash and negli9ent driving by its driver. The ctaimants have eiaimed cwnpensort-ion on the ground Itia* due to deoth of the deceased, they haw suffered loss of Income. 3. Leamed Ctaims Tribunal altowed the cl<am appfication and aworded a aum ef Rs.8,42,131/- as compensation. Interest at the rate of 6% per annum wa* awarded from 26.11.2008 tit) actual payment it macte. The liability to pay compensation has been fastened on the appelkmt-Insumice Company. 4. We have heard teamed counsel for the q>peltant and perused the recorcb of the Claims Tribunal as nlso the impugned award. S. The appellant-Insuronce Compony had assailed the impugnedfflmird inainlyon the ground of quantum and in this regard permisaion under Sectien 170 of the Aet, has been granted to the appellnnt. ,. J-- r-^. y^ .f-f. 6. In the mortter of Sarla Venna;(Smt.) flnd ottmv Vs. Delhi Tran^aort Corporatiwi & another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 the Hon'bte Suprcme Couri- has held thcrt-in absence of evietence totlwcontrary, brothera and sist'ers will not be considered as dependcnts, because they wlll either be independait and earning, or married, or be dependenton the father. 7. In the present case also thou^i the deceased was survived by the younger unmarried slsters & brother, but they will not be eonsidered as a dq)«ident because fartier of the deceased is alive, who is likely to hwe hia oum ineome, and only the mother wouU be considered to be a depcndant c»Kl50% woutet be , trecrt'ed ns personal <md living expenses of the bachelor. HowevBr.the Clatms Tribunal has not consldered this a^>ect of the matter and deduct'ed wily 1/y from the income of the deceased. Further, looking to the average age of the parents of the deceased, which is 49 yeaps (S0»48/2), the muNplter of 17 a|^>lied fay the Claims Tribunal is not coprect ond the Claims Tribunal shoukl have opplied multiplier af 13, os per decision of the Mon'ble Supreme Court' in the mortter of Sorla Venna's case (supra) 8. Thus, if we deduct 50% from the awiual income of deceased IA Rs.84,000/- (4800x12) ond thereafter apply muttiplier of 13 to tt, the total loss <rf dependaicy »wUcome to Rs.3,81,000/- (54000-50%xl3). Besides this, as the claimcnt-parents have lost young boy aged about 28 yeors, therefore, they are catitled to get Rs.IO,000/- each ond other claimants we entitled to get Rs.8,000/- each towards loss of love & affection. The ctaimants are olse entitled for Rs.10,000/- tmmrds loss of estat-e ond Rs.5,CXX)/- for funwd expenses. Expenses incurred in the treort'ment of the decaased would also be payobte i.e. Rs.16438/-. Thus, in all, the ctaimanta are entltled for a aim of Rs.4^2,138/- as compensation. 9. In the resuH', the appeal isallowtd in part ond the unpugned awiard is modify To the extent that now the claimants shall be entitted for R&4^2,138/- ns compensation in place of Rs.5,42431/- us awarded by the aaim* Tribunal. They shalt also be entitled for Simpte Interesl- @ 6% p.a. on the awarded omount from the ckrt-e of filing of application till aetual payment ia made. Rests of the conditions Imposed by the Claims Tribunal •hall ranain intact. 10. The,oppeal is atlowed to •the extent indicort'ed above. No order ns to costs. XI. -Sd7- I-M.Quddusi Judge Sdi- G. Minhajuddin Judge