^ ^' HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BI^SHRLR^JL. JHANWAR, J. Misc. Appeal No. 38/2002 APPELLANTS Ishwari Gokha.ie and others. Versus RESPONDENTS : Jalal Ahmed and others. ORDER Post for pronouncement on \^ August, 201 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge ^^^m. -.y" :..:^^ n HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH:BILASPUR SlNGLEBENCHiHON'BLESHRIR.L.JHANWAR.J. APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS Misc. ADDeal No. 38 6f 2002 1. Ishwari Gokhale, Wife of late Parasram, Age 27 years. 2. Kumari Dipali, S/o late Parasram Gokhale, Age 8 V^ years. 3. Ku. Renuka Gokhale, S/o late Parasram Gokhale, Age 4 years 4. Ku. Varsha Gokhale, age 2 years. Appellants No.2to 4 are minors through Natural Guardian Ishwari Gokhale. All residents of Ambagarh Chouki, Thana Ambagarh Chouki District, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Jalal Ahmad, S/o not known, Ghudapdev Takbandar, P.0. Muchpav, Rekha Road, Bombay-10. 2. Hedal Ali, S/o Hausil, Resident of Opp. Standard Kanta Hedar Garrage, Rarukhana Bombay-10. 3. New India Insurance Company, Through Mandal Manager, Thakkar Chambers, G.E.Road, Pawar House, Bhilai (C.G.) APPEAL UNbERSECTlON 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANT Appearance: Shri H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocatewith Ms. Pragya Singh, counsel forthe appellants. None for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri G.V.K.Rao, couhsel for respondent No.3 ORDER (Passedon |T, .08.2010) This appeal isdirected againstthe award dated 04.09.2001 passed in claim case No.07/1996 by the 1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,37,400/- as compensation along with interest at 9% per annum from 03.01.2000. .-cts •^^m 1,1; •'^j^y' ^ w z- 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 10.06.1994at 10.j40p.m.thedeceasedParasram was going to Durg from Rajhandgaon bylJeep. Oh way at Raipur Na/ca (Rajnandgaon), truck bearing registratibn No.23 B 6242, owned by non-applicant N6.2 and ihsured by non-applicant No.3 was beihg driven by non-applicant No.1 very rashly and negligently and was coming opposite side hit the Jeep vigorously, as a result ofwhich, Parasram has died instantaneously. A reportwas lodged at City Kotwali, Rajnandgaon for against non-applicant No.1 offence punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the I.P.C. 3. Claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.6,75,200/- was filed wherein it was pleaded that the deceased Parasram was working at Leprosy Department in the capacity of Lower Division Clerk and in that capacity he was getting Rs.1600/- per month. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 27 years. 4. By contesting the claim petition, the respondents have filed their written statements denying all the averments made in the claim petition. In its written statement, the ihsurance compahy specifically pleaded that it wasnot responsible to pay compensation sincethe owner and insurance company ofthe Jeep have not been made as party respondents and they ought to have been made party respondents in claim petition. 5. After affording opportunity to the parties and after appreciating the evidence led before it, the Tribunal held that the deceased died due to rash and hegligentdriving of the driver of the truck and in such fierce accident the deceased died on the spot and awarded a sum of Rs.2,37,400/- along with interest at 9% per annum payable from 03.01.2000. 6. Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Pragya Singh for the appellants argued that the Tribuhal has wrongly assessed the income of Rs.1600/- whereas it ought to have assessed Rs.2500/-; the leamed Tribunal has erred in giving the awarded interestfrom 03.01.2000 whereas the interest of 9% should have been awarded from the date of claim petition. In support of his argument as to interest part,he placed reliance in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company vs. Ananda Pai, 2002 (2) T.A.C. 59 (Ker.) 1 '^x.. • ''^^'^ .^ 'v/^.. 'W^'. ..^:'" -21 ^.' \ 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 supported the impugned qrder and argued fhat compehsation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper cOmpensation ahd awarded interest granted from 03.01.2000 lis also correct inthe facts and circumstances of the case. 8. I have heard thelearnedcounsel for the partjes at length, perused the record of theiTribunal including the impugned order. 9. The learned Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1600/- per month since the deceased was working as Lower Division Clerk in Leprosy Department where the deceased was getting Rs.1600/- per month, as pleaded by the claimants. Thus, the argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel that the monthly incomeofthe deceased ought to be at Rs.2500/- has no force because the appellants themselves have pleaded that the deceased was getting Rs.1600/-. So far as total award of Rs.2,37,400/- by the Tribunal is concerned, it is clear that the Tribunal after fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1600/- and annual income at Rs.19,200/-, deducted 1/3rd from the annual income and worked out the dependency to Rs.12,800/-. Taking note of the age of the deceased at 28 years, the learned Tribunal has used multiplier of 18. By using multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,30,400/-. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.7000/- under other heads. Thus, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal comes to Rs.2,37,400/-. 1 am of the view that the learned Tribunal has not erred in assessing the dependency of the claimants and in using multiplier of 18. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case and calls for no interference. 10. So far as iriterest at 9% per annum being granted w.e.f. 03.01.2000 is concerned, the learned Tribunal has erred in giving interest from 03.01.2000. According to the learned Tribuhal, on the date offiling of claim petition, the insurance company was not made party, therefore, it ordered to pay interest from 03.01.2000. In the matter of Oriental Insurance Company vs. Ananda Pai (supra), it was observed thaf the primary liability is cast on the driver and owner of the vehicle and it was on the basis of the contractual relationship subsisting between the owner and the insurance company that the insurance company undertakes to •-1 -&^ ^. discharge the liability cast on the owner. The owner has the liability to pay interest on com|pensation from the date of claim application. In such circumstarices, the insurance company in the present case, whatever be the date, cannOt shirk out of the liability to pay interest on the above compehsation from the datefiling ofclaim petition. 11. Thus, thel award of Claims Tribunal is modified to the effect that the insurance company shall pay the interest of 9% per anum on the compensation of Rs.2,37,400/- from the date of filing of claim petition till date of actual payment. 12. Accordingly, appeal is allowed partly. No order as to costs. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge BSi