BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC.APPEAL FC1 N0.•S.^3 /2008 MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 APPELLANT INSURER 'sie:^' RESPONDENTS CLAIMANTS 'Q- ? ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Company Limited, Registered office: ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra- Kurla, Complex, Mumbai, 4000 51, /^0\ through its Legal Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, 3rd Floor, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS 1. Smt. Anjora Kunwar W/o Shri Ram Singh Gond, aged about 44 years. y 2. Ram Singh Gond S/o Late Aghnu j Gond, aged about 47 years. Both Resident of village - Pendridih, P.S. Hirri, Tahsil- Bilha, District ' Bilaspur(C.G.) DRIVER 3. Heera Lal Raut s/o Narmada Prasad Raut, through - R.K. Agrawal ^- Partner M/s. Coal Movers T.P. Nagar, Korba (Chhattisgarh) OWNER 4. M/s. Coal Movers, Partner - R.K. Agrawal, T.P. Nagar,Korba, Tah. & ^ District Korba (Chhattisgarh). CLAIM IN APPEAL VALUED AT RS. 4.00.000/- ^ \ 'f •^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR COBAM: Hon'bleShri I.M.Quddusi.J. & Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. APPELLANT RESPONDENTS M.A.tONo. 353 of 2008 ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Company Limited. Versus Smt. Anjora Kunwar and others. MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 Appearance: Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for the appetlant. Shri Ramakant Pandey, counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2. QRALORDER Followng I. M. Quddusi. J. (09/12/2010) oral order of the Court was passed by \ This appeal has been filed ^ainst the impugned award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 23/01/2008 passed in Claim Case No. 91/2007, by VI Additiona! Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, by the Insurance Company namety ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, against the quantum fixed in the compensation by the Tribunal. (2) The brief facts of the case are that in the night of on 17-18/04/2007 deceased Arjun @ Shyam Gond was resting in Coal- tar Factory, Pendidih, the respondent No. 3 while driving Dumper (Truck) bearing registration No. C.G. 12 C/1058 rashly and n^tigently dashed the deceased Arjun and he died on the spot. The vehicfe was insured by the appellant/lnsurance Company. He was worMng as Labourer in Coal-tar Factory and was earning Rs.150/- ^ / •2. ^ per day. The claimants being dependents of the deceased, filed claim petition claiming to the tune of Rs.15,05,000/-. (3) The deceased was un-mamed aged about 22 years. His monthly income was assessed at Rs.3,000/- per month, therefore the annual income would come to Rs.36,000/-. The age of the parents were 44 years and 47 years and thus average of the same comes to 45.5 i.e. 46 and the multiplier of 13 would be applteable as given in the case of Sarta Venna (Smt) and ottiers vs. Delhl Transport CoiporaOon amlanother, f20M) 6 S.C.C. 121. (4) Since the deceased was a bachelor and the number of ctaimants are two i.e. parents, the deduction for personal expenses from the annual income would be 50% and thus the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs.18,000/- per year and after applying multiplier of 13 the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2,34,000/-. Besides this, the parents are entitled to a compensation for toss of love and affection and loss of estate and towards funeral expenses. Considering the age ofthe deceased, we are ofthe opinion that both mother and father of the deceased are entitled to get Rs.15,000/- each for loss of love and affection and 15,000/- further for loss of estate and Rs.5,0(X)/- towards funera! expenses and thus total comes to Rs.50,000/- which is to be added towards the loss of dependency i.e. 2,34,000/- and thus total compensation comes to Rs.2,84,000/-. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.2,84,000/-. They are also entitled to get 6% simple interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the paymentof award amount. . y y>/3 sy^'y^/r^^s.) Y^-^ 'il.ff.,-.ySSP -3- (5) The Tribunal has imposed a penal interest of 12% per annum which is not proper, therefore, we set-aside that part of the order and modify the impugned award to the above extent. (6) The appeal is allowed in part accordingly. In case, any amount in excess of the awarded above has been deposited, the same shall be refunded to the appellant/lnsurance Company. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge \- t ' y ^'/'7%^%-'y-z'~<'^7-