DiTHE mGH^OT.KT OF^JUDICATURE AT BILASPIBt MANo. /o? OF2003 a a e APPELLANT: Ba^nt KunHr Barai, S/o Prarimshna Baal, R/o ftakadi Industries Ltd., Tliana -Ohanpa, Distt: JaTggir-Chanya^.O) VERSUS RESPQNDBsmS •ssi -'•'.:^*' ^y ^^^ /^?'" ^yy ^^/' ^y (1) Smt. Amta Shamia, W/o Late Sm Anm s, Kumar Shaim^ aged ebout yeans, J^2) I'vfinorNeera) KumarS/oLateShriAnm .^' Kumar Shanaa, aged sibout 13 yeans, (^) ^lfinQr Ehirq Kumar, S/o Late Shri Arun Ktanar Shama, aged about 10 years Mnor dihotu, S/o Late Shn Anm Kumar r^ Shainia,qgeda(x)ut9monflis jp) Maor Swq KtBnar, S/o Late ShriAnm Kumar Shamia, ^ed about Syears. Respondmtno. 2 to 5 ateminors and IfaiQFeforeflu-ou^iflieartnolfaer andnatmal guardian Smt. Anita Sha-maWd/o Late Siri Arun Kunar Sharma AU R/o Begjndamar, I.T.I. Ranpur, Koiba, Tahsfl & C&stt. - Koiba(C.G.) ^<6) Smt N&ruti KunBr, S/o Shri Santean / Sahu,Egedsibout30yeai&,R/oSuadare3i, P.S.- Baradwar, Eistt - Jatggir-Chanya (7) Ramgapal Gaaigwaui. S/o Jeefcaam. aged /^ about 35 years. R/o Sedanadi, P.S. - KotWEdiKort)a(C.G.) ^- (S) Smt.SaritdL^dhssy.W/oCIihoitelal -. 5> VpsSsyay, a^d sibout 43 yeais, R/o Qv^a, Gsli, Koiba, Etstt. - Koria(C.G.) •*¥?s=^^"^.^ -2 -; (9) Umted India Instaanoe Coirpanyfln-ou^i f ilsBraidiNfanaga-^Q-'mAQffioe-P.H Rffid &a-ba, Ustt. - Koxba(C.G.-) MEMORAJNDDM OF AHPEAL TOflDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEmCLE ACT -I ^y ,,y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M.A. No. 211 of 2003 Appellant Srat. Savitri Upadhyay Versus Respondents Smt. Anita Sharma 85 others AND M. A.No. 707 of 2003 Appellant Basant Kumar Baral Versus Respondents Smt. Anita Sharma 8s others MISCL_APPEAL UNDER SE_CTIONA73 OF^THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 8s Hon'ble Shri N. K. Agarwal, JJ Shri Adiraj Surana, Advocate for the appellant in M.A.No. 211/2003. Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for the appellant in M.A.No. 707/2003 and for respondents No. 2 to 4 in M.A.No.211/2003. Shri H. B. Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Ms Pragya Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.9/Iasurance Company. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 25th day of October, 2010 ) PerI. M. Quddusi J. Heard. 1. These two appeals (M.A.No. 211 and 707 of 2003) are being disposed of by this common order as both the appeals arise from the one and the same award dated 31st January, 2003, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba, in Claim Case No. 61/2000, on the ground of quantum by owners of the vehicles. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 20.4.2000 at about 8.30 p.m. in the evening two vehicles i.e. Jeep bearing registration No. M.P.26 - E - 0714, owned by the non-applicant No.4 (Smt. Savitri Upadhyay) and Truck bearing registration No. M.P. 26-D-4405, owned by the non- Km ^f'i'^ 6. 7. applicant No.2 ( Basant Kumar Baral), collided near Jogi Nala on the Rampur Korba route between Urga Patadi. In that accident Arun Kumar Sharma, who was sitting in the Jeep died on the spot. The claiinants/legal heirs of deceased filed a claim case for award of compensation under Secdon 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Leamed Tribunal having regard to the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, awarded a total conipensation of -Rs. 4,73,390/- holding the non-applicants No. 2 and 4 (appellants in the instant appeals) to pay the araount of compensation jointly and severally in the Va ratio (50% each of the total award). The Tribunal has assessed the yearly income of the deceased as Rs. 40,000/-. After deducting l/3rd (Rs. 13335/-) of the yearly income, the dependency was determined as Rs. 26670/- per annum. Taking into consideration the age of the deceased the multiplier of 17 was applied and thus the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,53.390/- towards loss of dependency. In addition to that Rs. 10,000/- was awarded for last ritual and Rs. 10,000/- for loss of love and affection to the claimants No. 1 to 5, thereby a total compensation ofRs. 4,73,390/- was awarded. The Tribunal has held that there was violation of the conditions of the insurance policy therefore tbe insurance company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the amount of compensation. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the papers available on record. Learned counsel appearthg for the appellants submit that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly and yearly income of the deceased because he was a petty fruit seller. ^J^C? -~~i ^'flssAa^^-.^^; ,^E^"^' ^i^STE^:1'!!^^^ 8. According to the decision of Hontile Apex Court in Sarla Vertna (Sint.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) SCC 121, the deductions for personal expenses should have been l/4tb instead of l/3'-d as there are 5ve claiinants. The Tribunal deducted l/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of l/4th. Further, towards loss of love and affection each of the claimants are entitled to get reasonable araount but the Tribunal has awarded very less amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the claimants No. 2 to 5 only. In case if the income of the deceased is reduced accepting the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants, it will make no difference rather the total compensation will go on higher side. 9. In view of the above, there is no force in both the appeals and the same are disinissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge 3roCT"-7 CT^t ~ y,src.e v