^^ BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) M.A.fC)NO.<2>£ f /2010 Appellants Non-ApDlicants 1. Keshav Ram Dhruv S/o Mahatu Ram ^" .y:£^?iy ^^•^^•^ ^ ^.. RESPONDENT Dhruv, aged about 27 years. 2, Smt. Malti Dhruv, W/o Late ^' Maharuram, aged about 45 years. T^V^fv^v 3. Ramesh Kumar Bhruv, S/o Late Maharuram, aged about 32 years. All R/o Village-Tikanpal, P.S.- Bhanpari, Distt. Bastar(C.G.) VERSUS \<^Auiy03Nv 1_ Kelapam Mourya, S/o Pilaram Mourya, aged about 23 years, R/o Village- Usari Bichpara, P.S.- Bhanpari, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Main Road, Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar (C.G.) MISC APPEAL U/S 173 OF THEMOTOR VEHICLE ACT. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. (C) No. 361 of 2010 Appellants Keshav Ram Dhruv & others Versus Respondents Kaluram Mourya & another APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Justice G. Minhajuddin, JJ Shri Subhash Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent No.l, despite service of notice. Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocates for the respondent No.2. ORDER fOral) ( Passed on this 21st day of September, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/owner against the impugned award dated 3.0.11.2009, passed by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baster, Jagdalpur in Claim Case No. 241/2009, challenging the quantum part of the award only. 2. The list is being revised. No one is present for the respondent No.l/claimant, despite service of notice, therefore, we have proceeded ex-parte against him. 3. We have heard lcarned counsel appcaring for the appcllants and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, perused the lower Court record as well as the findings given in the impugned award. 4. The brieffacts, in nutshell, are that on 16.9.2004 the claimant, as a labour, was traveling in the tractor-trolley, bearing registration No. C.G. 17-G/0254 and 0255, which was owned by the non-applicants No. 1, 2 and 3. On the way, due to rash and negligent driving by the non-applicant No.l the claimant fell down from the tractor and the trolley ran over him, causing severe injuries on the left leg and hand of the claimant. 5. The claimant filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensatlon of Rs. 3,88,000/- under various heads. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record passed the impugned award, directing the non-applicants No. 1 to 3 to pay a total sum of Rs. 3,84,707/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, exonerating the insurance company from liability. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the impugned award is excessive. 8. On perusal of the evidence it is apparent that in para 10 of his statement the claimant has stated that he was not going for work on Saturday and Sunday in a week. Besides this, in para 12 he has stated that he is having his own agricultural land which is being looked by him. Therefore, if the average working days in a month are counted then it would come to 20 working days and therefore the income of the claimant comes to Rs. 2000/- p.m. As the loss of working capacity is assessed as 60%, thus the 60% of Rs. 24,000/- p.a. comes to Rs. 14,400/- p.a. Looking to the age of the claimant as 28 years, following the decision of Hon'blc Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport ^^ ^1' ^^•Wl!^^i^ Corporation and another1 we are of the opinion that in the instant case multiplier of 17 would be applicable. Therefore, according to us the total loss of vvorking capacity would come to Rs. 2,44,800/-. Besides this, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 17,502/- awarded by the Tribunal under other heads. 9. In view of the foregoing, we allow this appeal in part and modify the impugned award dated 30.11.2009 to the extent that the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 2,62,302/- (Rs. 2,44,800 + 17,502), along with interest, awarded by the Tribunal. Rest of the conditions imposed by the Claims Tribiinal shall remain intact. 10. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge (2009)68cc 121