1N THE HEGH CGURT OF CHI-IA’ITIS GARE AT BlLx'kSPUR MiscAppeal \No. 921 of 2002. (Claim in Appeal Valued at Rs.6,32,000.00) APPELLANT : Un'éed India Insurance Company m€§micgm No.1 3U td. , Through Branch Manager, Branch Office—Near Ram Mandi: Ambikapur, Th'ana & TahSil & F.O» Ambikaur, Disirict—Sarguj a (C.G.) VBRsus_ RESPONQgNTS : § l. Dadua Bai Widow of Moharsai, Aged-about 38 years, aOccupation of Hou$e Wife. Ishwar Prasad $on ef la’ce Moharsai, Aged abnut 2.1 years. Yadav Prasad Son of late Moharsai, Aged about lo years (Minor) Through Mother Dadua Bai Widow of Mohar Sai. $unira Kumari Daughter of laie ‘l Mohar Sai, Aged about 12 years (Minor) through Mother Dadua Bai Wiaewof Moharsai. Auk:%aete G6 B arg ah,Re sident of Village—Shyamnagar,'rhana g‘ T ahsil’aPra’tappur , Di stri ct— Sarguj a (C.G.) Cl airmants x5. Che'tanram Son of Rambhrosh, Aged abou1: 3O years, Occupation- Dri ver, Caste-P anik a, Resident of ..2.. /r, \1 “You“ p N HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR DB: HON’BLE LM. QUDDUSI & HON’BLE N.K. AGRAWAL, JJ M. A. so. 567 or 2002 M. { APPELLANT I I United India Insumnce Company 14m Vs. I msponnmws J } Dadua Bai and othem 7 MISC. APPEAL {H3 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 APPEARANCE: Mr. counsel H. B. for Agxawal, the appellant. Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Counsel for respondents 1 to 4. JUDGMENT ORAL (01.12.2010) Pa LM. QUDDUsl, J r 1. This appeal has been pied by the Insurance Company against the impugned awald dated 08.05.2002 passed by the Vth Add}. Motor Accident Claims Tn'bunal (F.T.C), Smajpur, Distt. Sarguja in Claim Case No.3/2002 challenging the liability as well as the penal interest imposed. 2. Bn'ef facts of the case as per the version of the claimants axe that on 03.03.2000 at about 1 RM. deceased Mohar Sai @ Moharlal was going 0n Cycle nom Shyamnagar to attend his duty. At that time one Tipper bean'ng Regn.No.M.P.27- B/ 1021 which was being di‘iven by mspondent no.5, Iashly and negligently, dashed the cycle of the deceased h'om back side as a result of which, Mohar Sai died on the pot. The deceased was aged about 48 years. He was working in S.E.C.L., as Loader and was earning Rs.5035/— per month. 0 / / , a gmamLLELQ The chimants being widow and children as also dependents of the deceased, :med claim petition claiming to the tune of Rs.10,50,000/ - lakhs on di§erent heads. 3. It is not in dispute that the driver of the vehicle/respondent No.5 was having an e%ctive and valid driving license. However, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver. The vehicle was a commercial vehicle. The permit was issued to ply the vehicle for the Whole State of Madhya Pradesh. The permit of the vehicle bearing Regn. No. M.P.27—B/ 1021 was issued on 11.04.1995 by the R.T.A., Bilaspur under Goods Carriage Permit PPUC No.533/RTA/ 1995. The vandity of permit was eEective hom 11.04.1995 till its expiry that is 10th April, 2000. 4. In View of the above, no case is made out warranh'ng interference by this Court in merits of the apneal. However, with regard to the amount of compensaiion, the deceased was working in S.E.C.L. and his salary was Rs.5035/- per month. According to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case, where the dependents are four in number, V4 of the income is to he deducted towards personal expenses which has been rejected and the monthly income has been assessed after such deduction as Rs.4000/- per month and thus the loss of dependency was worked out to Rs.48,000/ - per annum. Since the deceased was aged about 48 yeals, multiplier of 13 was used and thus the total loss of dependency came as Rs.6,24,000/~. Besides this, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2000{- each for loss of / x: / Z} consortium/loss of estate that is Total Rs.8000/ - for all the claimants and thus the total compensation was $ed as Rs.6,32,000/—. But the ’I‘n’bunal has not awarded any amount towanls funeral expenses and loss of estate etc. However, as no crossaobjections have been med on behalf of the claimants, we cannot consider the amounts under those heads in the appeal of insmanw company. Therefore, the oompensah'on assessed by the Tribunal is not on higher side. Further the interest Iate has been hxed by the Tribunal as 9% per annum if the amount is paid Within 2 months and after the stipulated peliod, penal interest at the rate of 12% per annnm has been imposed which is. not proper. Therefore, we modify the award of the ’lk‘ibunal to the extent that the amount under award shall carry interest @ 9% per annum through-out horn the date of tiling of the claim petition till the payment is made and no penal interest would be leviable. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part to the above extent only. £é_L//. VT #Sdl- Elsi— ‘1.M.Quddusi l NJQAQaNJal “"L Judge Sudge Rao