II. THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH ~^J~ |31vis1o?i Bgscli M.A. (C) N0. /2006 N APPELLANT ^(N.A.No.31 • ^',The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. D.0. (1) Madeena Manzil, Jail Road, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS y^/ .<^ / //y l/ Smt. Purna Bai Patel, ^-^ W/0. Late Trilokinath Patel aged about 50 years. 2. Smt. Ahilya Bai, W/0. Late Bihari Lal Patel, aged about 75 years. 3. Lochan Patel, ^ S/O.TrilokinathPatel aged about 25 years, 4. Basant Patel, S/0. Late Trilokinath Patel aged about 18 years, ^^ -> Ku. Seema Patel, S/0. Late Trilokinath Patel aged about 14 years, Through : Guardian Mother Smf. Purna Bail. All resident of Village : Chirka, P.S. Tumgaon, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) ^ 6. Sunil Kumar Gupta, ^ S/0. Durbhat Gupta, aged about 38 years; P.S. Tarari, Distt: Bhojpur at present residing Saraipali, Distt: Mahasamund (C.G.) 7. Kailash Chandra Agrawal, 8/0. Fattechand Agrawal, aged about 40 years, Owner Truck No. C.G. 06/A-9328 R/0. Saraipali, Distt. : Mahasamund (C.G.) A..^ MISC. APPEAL UNDBR SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. .i.1 H 1 !• MieM^^R^GR^Mi'TIISeiR^^ blVtSAONJEisjeMt i HON^t^^Rii.M^lit&USI^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^l NON'BllEm^^^KltiCii^^R^ Appellant Resoondents M.A<(©No.475NQ06 TheQrientalInSuranee€o,l.'f'<l. :.Vsl^,l'i.:^:.-'..l.',^^:Y;^ Smt. Purna Bai P^^^ t^'Plres®nt:;^<'l--'l''/'l-;'''.:^':'..''' Mr'.A^.M^^ ^r. N.X. Maivjyd,Adyoc(ite for^^^ !te: .~t- l./%. Quddusj.,7; I. Heard. OR ft(Qran (9th Nowniberi 2010) 2. The dppetlant- insurarKe ccm par^ has fi leci /th Js^^ misceiiiansous aDpeaf 'agciinsf -i theawarcldated 18.09.2006 passedjnCIaimCaseNo.l^ learned 2nd AdditJonal Mofor short ^he tribunai^ has allowecl^ t^ awarded a sum of Rs.t3,82,OOQ/-as compensation^ d foraccidentaiyefffhofdececiS^dTrilokJn^^ ^::"1'. ^.PermissionunderSectionlTOof^heMotorWhjclesAGt^ .j- claim pn all availableciefenc^swas^^^g^^ "\— :,. ,_.•:;;. ,^_. ';_/.'.''.^ ••,••';•';:l'l;_;''.:^.,\.../.'::^li;..''/:.'\";^ ;. 1^1:.^-'1'1^.'-'1'':'::1;1"C'J...''1-.''. 4.-Brieffactsofthecasearetti^ who was husband, son ^cl ^ yi'i"...'^"- '• • • -•'.. .•••''..•^.:'. ':'. •'•:'." ^:- ' .• •.• ;•'' ii-^'-':'::'~: '"',-.' i^' ^, 1;'\.:.'..^ '.:.'': .'^ .^, herein respectiveJy, wos.goin^^o^ from ViIlageChir^o. Vl/hen hereachecl n^ Ncrtional Highway No.6, atruck.be^ driven byrespondent iSlo.6 h^rejn^w deceased ds refiult of whic^ case befGrethetribunals^eBng^mp^ under variousheads on thearo^ .^€C€a?ed:',dn€i;'du:e?to^^ ^ •^WS^^iii'^ii^^t^^W:^ 'Siiiiiit^t^i^S 'il^ji'jffit'^' :,?; r.i'i1 i •ft ^ *: 5.j The tribunat, aft'er^^^ro 1 the clciimants, arriye^ 1 compensfftion to the 1'une of Rs^ accordinglyawardedthe^^^ 6. Learned counsel for the appeilanttias inssailed ^^ 1 the ground that the tearn^ of the deceased and therefore, fhe omount awarded to the claimants is too excessiye. Second ground ur^g^ tribunotl has wrongly apD |^s per Schedule-II, thc multi^^^ j has been estabiished fhcrt the ag^ 7. Qnthe other hand, tearned coungel^^^ 5 has supported the impugned aw^ 8, We have heard learned counse ai^ard as aiso records ofthetrjbuna! below. 9. So far as the apguments acJvoinced by learned cQunsel for •1-he appeliant regQrdJng income of the deceased is^^^^^^^c prbve ttie jncome^^^^^^o documents shomngthe factthflt the deeeased UVQS having 14^^a^ his name. Thus, in prcigehceofth .committed.:any;!irre9ularity .o cr:rivjn0-:crt[G ti'nding annual mcome of the deceased was earning Rs.1,20,000/-. 10. So far as the second ground raised by learned counse! for the appeilant regarding Qpplicabiiity of muttJDli^ regarding age of the deceased an^^ Lal (PW-1) has stoted thot age of^^^^t Therefore, presuming thcrt^^^^^^^^^t was Gbove 55 years. ui/e are of the Qpinion that |roper myltipiier in the instant case would be 9 xind not 11/as applied by the^ this, we are fortified with the decisjon Qfthe H of 5ar& t^f'WQ (S^f.^ e^ ^^wr^ ^-^^^ ww^r reportecJ in ^y^ SCCMl, j 11. AccordinglY, by muIti plyjng -t-He annua 1 ciependency of Rs. 1,20,OQO/- with the multiplier of 9, the tGtal loss of dependencv works ou^ Besjdes this, the cJdimoints woyld be entitied to rec^ive a Sum of Rs.5^00/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.l^ cQnsortium <& Rs.5,OQOAeach torespondent NosJ toP&^^t^ and affection and a sum of Rs.10,000/- toM/ards loss of estate, totaling Rs.45^00/-, If we add the amount of loss of dependency to the amb^ grdnted under varjous heads, the ciaimQnf^w total sum ofRs.ll,25,000/-(Rs.lO,80pOO+Rs.45,OOQ/-)ascompenSationfpr- H the death of decedsed Tmlokinath in the motor acciderit. 5m •\ ! ! . ' . ' ; • • : - ; :1 : : • respondent No.2NSmt. Ahilya Bai died duringthe pencJency ofthi^^^^ share shalf be equally djstributed to the the conditjons mentioned in the impugned award by the^fr sntact. 12. In the result, the aDpeat is allowed in part an^^^^ modified to th©extent indicctf'ed above. No order as to costs. 13. Certified copy as per ni !es. Rbshon/^ Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge