Pi'EK^.MQ .E,:Mi£%l.€XMJKE.C :aiBASTIS^kK»l:.^El BEIAS MJt<C)ife- 3l-ll. OP ^ (APmM*.MAyjE& M R&3^4«50&/4 louc^s^' 'c2) APPEAL UM3ER SEG33QN 173 QK 'Kffl MQTOiR 1%^K2l.^ ACT. 198& ^PPBUANT t (NON- APPUCANT, N0.3) _> A^.< wl--s^^. ?<«5©^ Q.^-'-VV '^•••••••^' Natioaal Insuraace Coi&^aiiy Limited, '2nd Flour, Mobin MAal, G.E. Road, Raipur (c.a.) VBRSUS RESI'OND^NJ'S (APPUCAIiTHO.U (APPUCANTN0.2) (APPUCANTN0.3) (NON-APPUCA]^ N0.1) ;1. Laldiaaa, S/O-Ainar Six^a Nistoaid, aged-S^years. :2. Krishna Kiiiaar, S/0-Lakhan Sm^i Mi^had, aged-25 years, ^ GoverdJhan, S/0-LaMiaa Singh Ni^iad^ ag^d -23 years, AU X/o-Vil.-Jamgaoii, P.0.- Pahaada, TaAt. & P.S.-Berla, Distt.-Dur,g{C.G.). t4, Gazitam Sm^ B^C^Sbri Ram Six^h, ^ged-38 years, occu^atioa-Dri»er» R/0- JRameshwar J^ar, Bbanpud, Raipuy Throu^i-Shatteadia 'Siagh, beNad SJhiv Sbaoker Teai^le, BIian^uri, Bistt.- IZaapur (00.) <Driver). (NON-APPUCAlffiC N0.2) :5. Archana Devi, W/O-R^esh Kumar, aged-29 years, i&ig Road No.2 Tatibmid&y Ra^nar throu^a-Pa^pu Kai ^/o-Sliri Sui-yanarayaa Rai, a&ed-2l : years, R/0-L.I.G.79 Housing Beard Cedoay, Tatibaadh I?aipur <C.G,). (Owaer) ^ HI6H COURT OF CHH^TTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR.6ULAM MINHAJUDDIN. JJ AppelSant Respondents M.A. [cl No.384/2011 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Lakhan & others Present: Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate for the appellont. Mr. P.P. Sohu, Advocate for the respondents No.l to 3. None for the respondent No.5 though served. ORDERfOral) , (22nd September. ?011) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard: 2. The appellant-Insurance Company has filed tbls app^cil against the award dated 31.8,2010 by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunat, (FTC), Bemetara, District Durg (for short <the Cbims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.09/10. ' 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the claimants, who are husband & sons of deceased Basanti Bai, have filed a claim application under Section 166 of the.Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act. 1988') b^fore the Claims Tribuna! seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.10,31,000/- for the death of said Basanti Bai, who died in a motor accident which took place on 01.11.2009 when the vehicle bearing registration C604-JB-5310, being driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver, hit said BasointJ Bai as a result of which she sustained grievous injuries and died during treatment The claimants have claimed compensation on the ground that on account of death of the deceased, they have suffered loss of income. 4. |The Claims Tribunal vide impugned award partially allowed the claim application of the claimants, awqrded a sum of Rs.3,24,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and fastened liability on the appellant herein to satisfy the impugned award. v s \ %..^// \3£^ 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. 6. The appellant has challenged the liability as also the quantum fixed by the Claims Tribunal. 7. So far as the liability part is concerned, perusal of driving licence available on record shows that licence issued to the driver of offending vehicle was to drive motorcycle +light motor vehicles + heavy goods vehicles, it was valid and effective on the date of accident and the same is purported to be signed by the Licensing Authority concerned. The appellant failed to addeice any evidence controverting the aforesaid fact. Therefore, we of the view that the Claims Tribunal has not committed any illegality or irregularity in fastening liability upon the appellant Insurance Company. 8. So farQS the quantum part is concerned, after perusal of the record we feel that the Ctaims Tribunal has erred in assessing the annual income of the deceased at Rs,36,000/- for the reason that as per averments made in the claim petition itself, the deceased was a lady and working in the brick kiln and it is known fact that brick kiln remains closed during rainy season i.e. for four months in a year. In these circumstances, the Claims Tribunal should have taken only eight months' income of the deceased. Further, tooking to the age of the deceased, which was 50 years at the time of accident, the multiplier applied by the Claims Tribunal is also not proper and the Claims Tnbunal shoutd have applied multiplier of 11 as per declsion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in t+ie matter of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport- Corporation & another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. In this situation, we propose to re-calculate the compensation, 9.;Accordingly, if we take workable income of the deceased i.e, Rs<24,000/- (3000x8) amd deduct 1/3 from it towards personal and livin9 expenditure, the total loss of incoime would come to Rs.16000/-. Thereafter. if we apply hnultiplier of 11 to this amount, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,76,000/-. Besides this, th6 claimant-husband is entitled to get i , Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, the claimants are entitled to get Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral ^ ^ 1 expenses. Thus, the total compensation for which the claimants are entitled for is Rs.2,08,000/- and not fts.3,24,500/- as awarded by the Ciaims Tribunal. 10.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, impugned award is modified to the extent that now the claimants shall be entitled to receive a sum of Rs.2,08,000/- instead Rs.3,24,500/- as awarde^ by the Claims Tribunal. They are also entitied to receive simple interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim apptication till actual payment is made. Rests of the conditions imposed by the Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. No order as tO CQStS. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Roshan/-