^.""il;':'-^^ >• "! i 1; -t^.,ttS-&. \v^ HIQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. B!LASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gupta. C.J. & Hon'bie Shri Sunii Kumar Sinha. J, Misc. Appea! No. 678 of 2005 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramdas Madane and others JUDGMENT -Cnf-onneideration equis jemn^ (lung -/PS HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA n Sd/- Chief Justice "O.S; Postfor.Judgment 2/^eaflncL- Sd/- 3- & /07/2009 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA. C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNiL KUMAR SiNHA.J, Miscellaneous Appea! No. 678 of 2005 APPELLANT RESroNDENTS United India insurance C.o. Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Tara Complex, G.E. Road, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) Versus 1. Ramdas Madane S/o Bapu Madane, aged 26 years, R/o A/P Kos^aon, Talukadand, District Pune (Maharashtra) 2. Miting Wtal Kakde, S/o Vitta! KSikde, aged bout 29 years, R/o 404, Guruvar Peth, Pune, District Pune (Maharasgtra) Present Address House no.481 (B) Shri KriF» Society Sahu, Cotlege Road, Parvati, Pune (Maharashtra) Non applicants 1 &2 3 Smt. Sarawati Bharadwaj W/o Devi Singh Bharadwaj, aged about 53 years 4 Shri Deyi Singh Bharadwaj, S/o Ganpat Singh Bhardwaj, aged about 62 years Both R/o 1824,!spat Nagar, Bhilai, Thana Nevai, District Durg (C.G.). Appellants/ Claimants (Appea! under Section 173 ofthe Mertor Vehicles Act. 1988) :.. is'ji'!-W*s ! ; J<..--;.-'';:^'^ ;, /' Misc. Amieal No. 678 /200S Appearance: EtSSi! Mr. Sanjay S. Agarwal, Counsel for the appeliant. Mr.Yashwant Singh Thakur, Counsel for respondents No.3 & 4. None for respondents No.1 & 2. JUDGMENT (Zl .07.2008) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. (1) Being aggrieved v/ith the award dated Sth January 2005, passed in Claim Case No.55/2004, by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (C.G.), the appellant/lnsurance Company has filed this appeal. (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- The claimants are the parents of deceased Piyush Bharadwaj, who died in the motor accident on 30.03.2003, when his motorcycle bearing registration NO.C.G.10-Z-E./6800 was dashed by the offending tmck bearing registration No.MH-12/7073. The claimants pleaded that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by its driver, therefore, the driver, owner and the Insurer of the offending truck were liable to pay compensation. They further pleaded that their son Piyush Bharadwaj was a Master Degree holder from Pune University and was eaming Rs,.8,200./- per month. On their own calculations, they claimed compensation of Rs.19,10,CK30./- for the death oftheir son in the motor accident. Misc. AnBeaUio, 678_/2QQS The owner and the driver of the truck remained ex- parte, whereas the Insurance Company fi'ed its written statement. In addition to the usual denial, the !nsurance Company pleaded that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle, therefore, the Insurer was not liable to pay compensation. The insurance Company was also granted permission u/s 170 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. The Claimants examined Siddhna (AW-1), Mahendra Prabhulal Trivedi (AW-2) and Devi Singh Bharadwaj (AW-3) in support of their Ciaim Petition, whereas, the Insuranc^ Company did not examine any wttness in rebuttat. The learned Claims Tribunat rerorded findings that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by its driver and the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation. The Tribuna! further recorded a finding that the deceased was earning Rs.8,200/- per month. Relying on the evidence of father of the deceased Devi Singh Bharadwaj (AW-3), the Tribunal determined the monthly dependency of the parents as Rs.5500/- and annua! dependency as Rs.66,000/-. By applying multiplier of 14 to the said annual dependency of Rs.66,000/-, the amount of compensation was worked out to Rs.9,24,000/-. By adding a further sum of Rs.20,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.9,44,000/- as compensation to the claimants on account of death of their son Piyush Bharadwaj in the motor accident. The Tribunai also awarded interest © 9% per annum from the date offiling ofthe claim petition till its realization. Mr. Sanjay S. Agarwal, leamed counse! appearing on behalf insurance Company, has pressed this appeat on the grounds WSvs. '"rr;'L^ Misc. Amieal No. 67R /2005 of multiplier applied by the Claims Tribunal and the rate of interest. He submitted that the claimants are the parents, therefore, the multiplier of 14 was on the higher side and the suitabte multip!ier be applied to work out just and proper compensation. He further submitted that the rate of interest shoutd also be reduced. (4) On the other hand, Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, tearned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 3 & 4, opposed these arguments and supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunat. (5) We have heard the learned counse! for the parties at tength and have atso perused the records ofthe claim case. (6) In the case of Mumcipal Corporatton of Greater Bombav vs. Laxman Iver and another. (2003} S S.C.C. 731, the deceased was aged about 18 years and the parents were the claimants, aged about 47 years and 43 years respectively. The Apex Court said that it is not the age of the deceased alone but the age of the daimants as we!l which are to be the relevant factors, in case the parents or other dependants are claimants. The other factors which have to be taken into consideration are : (i) marital status of the deceased because possibility in reduction of contribution is a reality once a person gets married, (ii) separate income of the parents and their education, and (iii) loss of pecuniary beneflts. It was also hetd that in the facts and circumstances, the multiplier of 15 adopted by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court was on the higher side. , The Apex Court observed vide para 10 that considering the age of ^^ Masc. Amieal No. 678 72005 the ciaimant, the multiplier can never exceed 10 even by the most libera! standards. (7) tn case on hand, admittedly, the claimanfs are the parents of the deceased Piyush Bharadwaj. Claimant No.1 Smt. Saras'"ati Bharadwaj is the mother of the deceased a"d c'aimant No.2 Devi Singh Bharadwaj is the father of the deceased. Sarawati Bharadwaj has been shown to be aged about 53 years and Devi Singh Bharadwaj has been shown to be aged about 62 years. There is no dispute that deceased Piyush Bharadwaj was aged about 24 years on the date ofthe accjdent and he was unmarried. <8) In view of the above, the murtiplier of 14, applied by the Tribunal, was certainly on the higherside and we do not affirm the same. In our considered view, the mu!tip!ier of 10 appears to be the appropriate multiplier, which the Trjbuna! ought to have app'ied for determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimants. Therefore, we set aside the impugned award so far as it reiates to the quantum of compensation and propose to recompute the amount of compensation by applying the multiplier of 10. /'- (9) By applying multiplier of 10 to the annua! dependency of Rs.66,000/-, the compensation works out to Rs.6,60,000/-. The amounf of Rs.20,000/- awarded under other heads atso appears to be excessive. We award a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the other permissible heads and thus, the total amount of compensation works out to Rs.6,70,000/-. The claimants are entitied fo receiye a sum of Rs.6,70.000/- as comDensation on account of death of their son Ift.~.n, K...... ^ ^t ;^w...-.7*:?1^" Misc. ATOea) No. 67R /2005 ^ Piyush Bharadwaj in the motor accident. The rate of interest i.e., 9% per annum ,is afso on the higher side. By setting aside the same, we award interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fi'ing of the cteim petition till its rea'ization. (10) The appeal filed by the Insurance Company is a!!owed to the extent indteated above. (11) There shall be no order as to the cost(s). Sd/- Chief Justice SunilKumarSinha snvna illi Itlll w^-^ il81