IN THE HI€^B€%WRTOF JUDICATURB, AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH ^- ^^.^ ^ '^••" jy-l^ ^ '"^ R- ^^ ~^'' ^c^^'99' l..'o-:i^ .^•""L^ 'I1 ^^..^•' ..-" ^ M.A.C.No. ^^2-/2010 APPELLANT:— National Insurance Company (Insurer) Limited Through Divisional Manager National Insurance CompEiny Lunited Gil Coinplex Near Gurudwara Station Road Durg TehsU & District Durg (C.G) Trough: Authorised Signatory National Insurgince Company Lunited, Divisional Office: Bl Taha Complex, Ring Road II, Priydarshani Nagar, BUaspur (C.G). VERSUS RBSPONDENTS:- 1. Smt. Durga Devi Patro Wd/of (1 to 4Claimants) 1 Late Santosh Patro, aged about 27 years. 2, Minor Chanchala Patro D/o Santosh Patro aged 08 years, Through Guardian Mother Durga Devi Wdf /o Late Santosh Patro 3. Minor Payal Patro D/o Late Santosh Patro aged 06 years Through Guardian Mother Durga Devi Wdf /o Late Santosh Patro 4»Malti Devi Pabro Wd/o Late Tanu F Patro aged 55 years All R/o Caxnp-2 Shardapara Gandhi Chouk, Near Janta School Thana Chhavni Durg TehsU & District Durg Chhattisgarh. ^T^^ (Driver) 5. Sanjay Pandey S/o Yashvant Pandey aged 35 years R/o Village Chandanu Tehsil Bemetarta P.S Nandghat Presently residing address Chhattisggirh Auto Parts New Bus Stand Bemetara P.S Bemetara District Durg (C.G). Raghav S/o Shri (Owner) 6. Avinash Surendra Singh Raghav aged 47 years R/o M.I.G -7 Mahavir Nagar P.S Teli Bandha Raipur Diostrict Raipur. APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT,1988 /f ,.^g^% (f^-^ A! National Limlted VeFsus Smt, Durga others. Ensurance Company 3evi Patro and APpEAL UNDER SECTiON 173 OF THE JViOTORj/EHiCLES_ACT, DB: Hon'bie Justlce i.M. & Hon'bie Shri Jystice N. K. Agarwai. : Shri B.N. Nande. counsel forthe aopeliant. • Shri Sudhir Verma, co-unsei for respondent No.6. None for other respondents. ftl on 25s" day This has fiied by insurance Company the impugned award 11-01-2010, by the Eighth Additlonal Motor Acddent Clalms Tribunai, (F..T.C.) Durg (fbr shcrt 'the Tribuna!') In CEalm No. 11/2009 on the ground of quantum. 2. The appellant h'as obtained permjsslon under Section 170 of the Act, 1988. 3. of the case, are that on 1 1-1 - Santosh Patro going tcwards Khurslpar (Durg).from Bhiiai-3 along wlth Rakesh Dewangsn by mctorcycje. At that time, one Scorplo Jeep regjstration No. C.G.-04-H/9505, whteh was bejng driven by No.5 rashiy and. negllgentiy, tne motorcycie. The was to the where he succumbed to the injurles, The i.s^ff^ ^ ^ "":-'~ yy '%. '^^4:' '"^" IK?%^:^^<:'-~ deceased' was agsd about 30 and was earning Rs.10,000/-permonth. 4. The ciairnants, unfortunate rnother, widow and two minor child-en of the had fiied a petition before the Tribunai under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehteles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') ciaimjng 8 compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- under vanous heads. 5. The iearned Tribunai on a ciose scrutlny of the evidence ,ied, materiaS pfaced and submissjons made by the parcies, heid that the vehicle In questlon invojved in the accjdent in which the has died, it Is not proved that thers was negiigence on ths part ofthe and thus a sum of Rs. 6,34,500/- ajong with Interest @ 6% per annum from ths • offjijng ofthe cialm petitlon 1111 its rssillsation; 6. We have learned counsei for ths parties, perused the impugned award and the record ofthe Tribunai. 7. !t Is evident that the Tribuna! has committed an error jn not deductlng the personaS expenses from the Income of the deceased. The Income of the as. Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum. Slnce there fourdalmants, in vlew the judgment ofthe Supreme Court in of ys. 0 a^d reported in 6 121, where the number of dependent faml'y members is 4 to 6, the deductlon towards personal and living expenses of the shou'id be 1.N , therefore, 1/4th of the Income of the should have been deducted by the Tribunal. Thus, after deducting 1/4 ofthe income i.e. Rs.9,000/- from the annual income l.e. Rs.36,QOO/-, the totai dependency comes to Rs.27,000/- per annum. 8. The Supreme Court jn of has heid in para 30 as under: "30. Though in some the. deductlon to be made towards persona! and living is calcuEated on the of units Indicated in Tnlok Chsndra, the general practice is to appiy deductions. Having considered severai subsequent decislons of thls Court, vv'e are of the vievvthat vvhere the married, the deductlon towsrd-s . and living expsnses of the deceased, shou!d be. one-third (1/3 ) where the number of dependent famsiy is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the nurnber of dependent famiiy rnembers Is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5 ) where the number of dependent famiiy members exceeds slx." 9. Further, the muitlplier of 17 has wrongiy been by the Trlbunal, as the age of the 32 and according to (supra), the multipller of 16 shouid have appiied. Therefore, by applyin^ the muitlpiier of 16, the amount comes to Rs.4,32,OOOA- (27000 X16). Since the a young of 32 years, future •o'f Incorne is a!so to be considered. Therefore, ursder other i.e. towards of consortium to clajmant. Mo.1 Smt. Durga Devi, to our opinion, it be Rs.10.000/-; for ioss of 'ove and affectjon to other three claimants Rs.5,000/- each (i.e. Rs.15,000); towards of Rs.10,000/- and for funeral it should b9 Rs, 5,000/- and thus on conventional ths tota! amount comes i®fi:l .•"^^;:sll' H. ti;U to Rs.4Q,OQQ/-^ Thus the claimants are ehtftled^^^^ am6untofc6rnp6nsatiorTofRs.4,72,C^p/-(4^2,000/-+40,00^^^ •10. Beside&theabQye,th^claimantswouldbeentjtledto9et mterest@ 6% peranTOm^o^ thfr the date offilihg of the petition,vti!l^^^^^^^i^ conditions^ntionedinth^a^ •remain;1ntact.^;:::^l:v1^'^ 11.TheimpugnedawaFddated11-Q1-2Q1Qsta^ theabovee)dent.Theappealisall6wedinpart,ac^ Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge •\^^ .«