HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (Q No. 1566/2009 APPELLANT INSURER RESPONDENT N0. RESPONDENT CLAIMANTS RESPONDENT N0. RESPONDENT No. 4. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. ICICI Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Murribai, through its legal Manager, 3rd Floor, Lal Ganga Shopping Complex, G.E. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Versus Sharad Waman Rao Kale, son of Late Shri Waman Rao Kale, aged about 73 years Smt. Vibha Sharad Kale, wife of Shri Sharad Waman Rao Kale, aged about 68 years Both residents of House No. D-417, C/o Shri J.L. Patel, Maitri Nagar, Mahadev Ghat Road, Post Sunder Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. Shri Sheikh Samad, son of Shri Mohd. Rafiq, age not to the appellant, resident of village Chappra Bahoribandh, Distt. Jabalpur, M.P. Permanent resident of village Chappra, Thana Sleemnabad, Distt. Katni, M.P. (Driver) Manjeet Singh Wade, son of not known to the appellant, age not known to the appellant, resident of G.E. Road, Tatibandh, Raipur, Tehsil Raipur, Distt. Raipur VEHICLE OWNER SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J. PRESENT :-Shri Amrito Das, Adv. for the appellant. None for respondents though served. ORAL ORDER (5-4-2010) Per N.K. Aeanwal, J 1. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the award dated 30til June, 2009 passed in Claim Case No. 64/2006 by IXth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Raipur. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- L-"11""— 6. \.\" 8. On 8-10-2007 Sharish Kale (since deceased) aged about 34 years, met with an accident with Truck No. 04 JA-0598 being driven by respondent No. 3 owned by respondent No. 4 and insured by the appellant and succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. The claimants/respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (briefly 'the Act') claiming Rs. 43,26,840/- as compensation for the death of the deceased in the said accident. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, material placed and the submissions made, held respondent No. 3 responsible for the said accident, assessed income of the deceased as Rs. 36,000/-; deducted 2/3rd of it towards personal expenses of the deceased and thus assessed early dependency as 12,000/-, looking to the age of the deceased at the time of accident as 34 years, applied raultiplier of 17 and assessed Rs. 2,04,OOO/- as compensation towards loss of dependency. Learned Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and thus awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,06,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants for the death of the deceased. Shri Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that learned Tribunal has erred in applying multiplier of 17 in the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch, leamed Tribunal did not consider the age of the appellants which is 72 and 67 years and it is trite law that while applying multiplier, the age of the deceased as well as of the claimants which ever is higher is to be taken into consideration. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award as also the record of the Tribunal. A bare perusal of the award would reveal that learned Tribunal has failed to consider the fact that the appellants were of the age of 72 and 67 years at the time of the accident. It is trite law that in case of claim under Section 166 of the Act, the age of the deceased and the age of the claimants whichever is higher is to be taken into consideration while applying multiplier. Here in the instant case, looking to the age of the claimants, appropriate multiplier would be 5 as per IInd Schedule appended to Section 173 of the Act. In view of the above, I propose to recompute the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9. Learned Tribunal has taken into consideration income of the deceased as Rs. 36,000/- per annum which is based on appreciation of evidence and does not call for any interference. Learned Tribunal has deducted 2/3rd of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not correct. Since the claiinants are very old persons, in need of regular help of the deceased and, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, appropriate deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3rd of the income.By taking into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs. 36,000/- and after deducting l/3rd towards personal expenses, the annual dependency would come to Rs. 24,000/-, by applying multiplier of 5 as aforesaid, compensation towards loss of dependency would come to Rs. 1,20,000/-. By adding a further sum of Rs. 15,000/- on other heads in the aforesaid amount of compensation, total amount would be Rs. 1,35,000/-. Thus the appellants are entitled for Rs. 1,35,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till its recovery. 10. In view of above, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is set aside and instead, the claimants are entitled for amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till its recovery. 11. The appellant / Insurance Company is granted two months' time from today for payment of the amount of compensatlo^n. 12. No order as to costs. N.K-Agrawal Judge