^. Y"- ^. o9 ^A' OF AT _: Hon'bie Shrl J. f c] of 2007 AppelSaint Birjha Bal W/o Late Kartlk 45 R/o VIJiage Samoda, Post Karanjai, Bhilai, Tahsii & District Durg (C.G.) versus 2. 3. Seduram Sinha S/o Unknown, R/o'Viilage Chikhii, P.S. Mohan Nagar, Durg, Dlstrict Durg, (C.G.) Through: Goverdhan Sahu . , S/o Chowaram R/o Viiiage Karhidih, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) Occupation-Tractor Driver Tractor No.C.G.-04/ZQ/4490 & Trolley No.C.G.-04/ZQ/4491 Goverdhan Sahu S/o Chowar^m R/o Vliiage Rarhldih, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) Occupation-Tractor Owner Tractor iMo.C.G.-04/ZQ/4490 & Troiley No.C.G .-04/2Q/4491 The Orienta! Insurance Company Through: Divjsionai Manager, Maiwiya Nagar, Durg, Tahsii and District Durg (C.G.) insurer Company: Tractor No.C.G.-04/ZQ/4490 & Tr.oiley No.C.G.-04/ZQ/4491 Mlscellaneous Appeal under.Section 173 of !Vlotor Vehicte Act Pressnt : Shri Santosh Yadu, counsel for the appeliant. No one'-appears on behaif of raspondents No.1 to 3, though and on their behaif on 24ir- August, z Th The was flnaiiy today. (2) The is by the 26-08-2006 by the 10 Addltjonal Motor Accidenis Claims Tribunai, (F.T.C.), Durg (nenceforth the lyi.A.C.T.) in case. No.132/2005 whereby the compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- has for the of Kartik Ram< 55 years< (3) The MA.C.T. the monthly income of the at Rs«3,000/- per month. Considering the fact that the widow the ciajmant, the MA.CJ. % personal of the and the ioss of yearly dependency at RsJ 500x12^1 S.OOOA-. App!ying multipjier of 11, loss of dependency was assessed at 18,000x 11=1,98,000/-. Adding to it a further consoildated sum of Rs«22,000/- under various conventlona! the M.A.C.T. Rs.2,20,OOC3/- as cornpensation. (4) Learned counsel for the appellant submltted that the compensation bythe'SVIA.CT. has bythe insurance'company and by the claimant. (5) The urged by for the appellant in this appeal is that the M.A.C.T. ought to have deducted 1/3rd of the monthly income of the No other ground was urged, . '.. (6) • No one for the owner, driver and insurance company at the time of'final hearing. 3 (7) Having considersd the submlssion of learned counsel for ths appellant, I the record. On the of accident, Bai the sole dependent on the deceased, being his widow. Deductlon of 1/3rd of the monthiy income of the towards hls personal Is not oniy a ruie of prudence but is in conformlty with the to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 whereln It has specifically provlded that the amount of compensatlon so arrived at in the of accident cialms be reduced by 1/3 in consideration of the whlch the vlctim wouSd have Incurred towards maintaining hlmself had he alive, Deduction towards personai ijvlng of the upon various factors, !n Transpart Corporation, Trlvandrum. vs, sc it in the of evidence of the of whlch the on the on th@ house hoid, it would not be unusuai to deduct 1/3rd of the gross income towards the persona! iiving and the as the amount iikeiy to have on the of the famliy, In ¥S» S81, the Apex Court had whiie loss of dependency deducted 1/3 of the gross monthly income towards expenses. Where are oniy two in the famiiy, the does not % ofthe monthiy Income oniy towards hls Some amount is malntalning the household and other Incldentai the to be incurred by the remalnlng spouse. Monthly jncome of the member of the faniiiy not-oniy inciudes the Incurred by the earnlng member but bvNthe^spouse as the for mainteining the and other Therefore, in thls ' e_ ^T ^ of the M.A.CJ. in % of the monthiy of the his wholly Incorrect the monthly income has to be into first for of the for of the other and iastiy towards for maintaining the househoid and other ') expenses^ In this view ofthe matter.tne MA.C.T. in hajf of the monthly income of tne hls Takin$ personai expenses ofthe deceased at 1/3rd of the monthiy income, Joss of monthly comes to Rs.3000-1000=2000. Muitipiying it by 12, of yearly dependency is at Rs.24,000/-. Applylng the .muitipiier of 11, total loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,64,000/- (24,000x11=2,64,000/-). Adding to this, a sum of Rs<22,000/- under various conventional heads, compensation is arrived at Rs2,88,000/-. (8) In the result, the is aiiowed. Compensation by the M.A.C.T. is enhanced to Rs.2,8S,000/-. adjustlng the amount of compensation paid, the remaining compensation be bythe respondent"'No.3/lnsurance company withln a period of two months from today, fajllng whlch, the insurance company be to'pay @ 8.5% per annum from the date of appiication tili r©a!isation. (9) A copy of this order be sent to the MA.C.J. forthwith. The M.A.C.T. on of compensation ensure: (A) that the is the and to appear before the M.A.C.T., in person along v/ith her book of an in a bank, (B) that the book of the ciaimant is by the photograph is duiy verifled by the the js verified by the MA.C.T. Issuance of cheque, ins (C) that a direction is issued to the concerned bank not t-o reiease the amount in favour 6f any person, other than the claimant uniess ordered byth®M.A.C.T. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge