-^m^^.'^^ l..r e^fc- BEPORE THS HON'BLE HIQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASP Misc» Appeal No ^ /2003 Appellant Origijpial Non Applicant N0^ Respondents OrigAtial Applicants . ^^ ^SQ^^ ^e^--''" ^^ 1®^.^' ^ livisitn Bine^ si D •S^Prakash» S/o ^ SA ^Pralcash aged about 60 years^ Teacher R/o ^ Jarahagaon» Thana-JarahagaoB > Distt^ Bilaspur (C^G^) (Owner of Tractor ^o^ c^G<»l0A 055 & Trolly no. C.G.10A 0056) VERSUS -$ l^ Latelii Ram» S/o^ Rambagash Kashyap> aged about 41 years» Ram Kunwar Bai^ W/o^ Latelu Ram aged aboixt 39 years^ ^ Badri Prasad^ S/o» Latelu Ram aged aboiit 21 years^ 4^ Kuxnari Rameshwariy D/o^ Latel^i Ram, aged about 11 years minor throix^i Guardian father Latelu Ram» All resident of Village Kiitelipara» Motimpur^ Thoiia - iTarahagaont Tahsil Mungeli» Distt^ Bilaspur (C^G^) ResBondent QAginal Non-Appllcant ^. N0, R^spondent f0riginal Non-Applicant N0 5. Narayan alias Ram Marayan^ S/o^ Radhelal alias Radheshyam» Driver R/o^ Vlllage Chhatona, Thana -» Jarahagaon, TahsiI-Hungell» Distt^ Bilaspur (Driver of Tractor 130• C«G. 10A 0055 & Trolly No« C.G.IOA 0056) ;» United India Insxarance Company Limited, Rajendra Nagar^ Bilaspur (C.G.) (Insurer of Tractor No»C<G^10A 0055 & Tractor Trolly No» C.G.lOA 0056)• ^i^ -s 2 s- Memorana- o£ Apneal Und.r SeGtion 173 of the Motor Vehicle Ae^ --—a—a-.—*. D--<1'B"-->'5 '7fi1/- a?^sijaa -^^ .•fw HI^HCOURTQFCHH^CTTIS^RH^rBIUSPUR 6IVISIONBENGH; HON'BLEMR. I.M.CttJb&USIA NON'Bl^ ^R.NA^LKISHQ ^^^^L. J^ ^DDelIant ResDondents Vs N6.394/2003 b.S.Prakash Lafelu Ram & others Present; • ,..•'' .^:;; \,:11.; , :•-, 1;. 1.' \1.:11; Mr. Sachjn Singh Rcy^p Mr. Vimiesh Bajpoi, AOTO Mr, hl.B :''r|||tond€nt||^Q.6^ :;':: y ^ ORi3E^(QpaO (215th ©ctQteiv2010) 1;^. ©uddusi,,7; 1. Heard.' t.. 2. Th©apDeilont-'pw awcrddcri-ed 31.^3.2003 passed m€laimCas&N0.6/20027 wh^ ieGrhed Addifional Motor Bilqspur (for short^^^^^^^^^^ ^ i ..^'••'-•'^•''•1:; ••-'" ':';"^..:'..'/":'",'"-:':". " •^•.'. : "•; -' Y^ l;r.- respondent Nos.l^to 5 herein anci^ a comDenSQtion QJonQ ^ith^^^^^^ 'satisfy'the'a^Qry.i'.'::^:,^ fe-.: ;:.-'».1..; .;.! ..;i '•^'L;'''^' • 11;'.: .:"1:''^,', ;../:^.^:.^^tl^ ^.::'^.g'^Brief •lfQcts;of.:,the'';;:;c^e'^r tFQveJing in thetFdctor and tt^JleybeGrinaregisfrd-io^ OQ5%i,Due''to'rias:hi'd tractor, the d^ceased had f sustamed^risvQ^sinju^iss.Hewas^^^a^ Bijaspur fortr€<^m@nt^ Hospital, he die|. 1ah^^ the de^ased r^specfively,^^^h fts.12,90,000/- dnlthe groundt^ intheNmiiyQndJtheywer^ •^^1 ^ :-:yss^yv 4.. The.tribynai, aft-er considering the issues framed by itriTIo^/ed Th©ciajro appiscatjon ofthe claimants / respo.ndent No.l to4 herein and awo.rded a compensation of'RsJ,22,763/~:und€rvarious heads.. 5, . . Learnea3 counsei for the appellont has .assGiled .the irnpugned a.i^crd on the ground that the ieQrsied tribynal 'hds erred in the inconfie of the deceased arid therefore, the amount aworded to the ciainiantg is too excessive« The vehicie was nevc^r Diie.d in vioiation of the terrns and conditions ofthc insurance Doiicy, 6» • We have heard learned counsel for the Darties and perused the impuaned award as dso records ofthe'tribunaj bebw. Z'- .From perusa! of the record, it'is c!ear that since the deceased I^QS travelin.g in the said tract in the capacity of gratuitous passenger, .the ^msurance conipciny is not liable to pay the compensation and the chims trjbuna! has not committed any iltegaiity'or impropriety'by exonerating the. insurance compGny. 8. So fcr as the. question of quantum .is concerned, on carefu! examination of the'Jmpugned aiA/ard, we firsd that the tribunal has assessed the incorne of the deceascd/who'WQS 18 years of age at the tim@ of accident, as Rs28,800A p.a but instead of deductinQ 50%, as he!d by the Hon'ble Supreme Court In the matterof y^/w^ .fSwf.}' -ww D^/h/ Tr^wp^rf' reported in ffQQ9) 121, ,tbe tr'buna! has deducted oniy l/3rd toivards the standard dediictian for persona! expenditure. Therefore, we are of the oplnion that out of th©annucil jncome of the i.@, Rs.28,800/" /' deserves to be modified and occordingly, cifter mQking deduction of 50% torards the Dersonaiexpenditure of the deceGsed, we assess the annual i nc.am e of th@| deceased at Rs.NAOOA 9. For applying.the muitipiier.-the aae of the parents of the d'eceased i's relevant, as the deceased ^'as unmarried in .this and thereforc as . per decision of the Horfble Apex' Court in the niatter of since the oge of the parents of the is 40 & 39 years respectively. :multiplier. of 15 i^ouid be applicable in the Bregent ^^ffii^^^W7? ^II •.^^s^_.'^^ .a1 .-.-—%i y i ^^^" E instead of 16. 'Thus, the total of.dependency.iiTOuid come to •Rs,2,l6,000/-(14,400x15). . • Further, asum ot'Rs.5,000/- each j.e. Rs, 15,000/-,towards bss of iove and affecti'on ancl Rs,5,000/- each i.e. Rs.15,000/- towards ioss of esta'l'e is ai^wded to the respondents No,L 'Z & 5 i.e« Lateiu Ram ' (father), Ra'm Kun^'ar Bai (Sister) and Kornari Ramesh^ori (rninor sister). RsJ.OOOA is also awarded towards funerai expenses. Accordingly, the total compensation for w'hich .the ciGimants.^ouid be.entitled comes to Rs. 2,49.000/-. . 10. In view- of the above, the appea! is alto^ed in pQrt and no^ the claimGnts, shdl be entitled to get Rs, 2,49,000/- as compensation instead of R3.3,22J63/Ba as ai^arded by the tribunGl vide impugned ayy'crd dated 31.8.2007, Out of the totai amount of compensation, Rs.60,000/- shai! be deposited in the form offixeddeposit inany nationalized bank.in the names of respondent.No. t, 2 & 4 i.e. Lateluram, Smt. Ram Kunwar Boi & Kurnori Ramesh^ari for a .period of five years. of the Qmount-shall be deposited in their saving bank account. The clQimants shall also be .entitied for. interest @ 6% p,a from the date of filina.of the application tiJI the actual .pQyment is rnGde by the insurance company. 11. Th.e i.s aib^ed in Dart to the extent indicate above. 12. Certjfied.copyasperruies, Sd/- |I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge RoshanA -J'~T?~ ^^^N''^^^f;t»^i3^^,^:in^