1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) M.A. fC) N0. ^ILf /2009 Qj^gj "' National Insurance APPELLANT c?- .--.; '-'•c - ^. Company, .'"<^ ^S>' * j..^T'1rou9'n: Branch Manager, National CL^.V^'^^^l(>lnsurance Company Limited, Bhutani '^^\!^^ Complex, G.E. Road, Power House, ^^;^y^^~"" ^^•- ^.. RESPONDENTS Complex, G.E. Road, Power House, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS ':!. Kashmira Singh, S/o. Darshan Singh (dead) through legal representative Smt. Manjit Kaur, W/o. Late Kashmira Singh, aged about 40 years, R/o. Through : Gurunanak Roadwaige, Transport Nagar, Hatkhoj, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) (Owner) 2. Smt. Uma Saxena, W/o. Arun Saxena 3. Ku. Bhawna Saxena, D/o. Late Arun Saxena, aged about 14 years 4. Ku. Shobhna Saxena, D/o. Late Arun Saxena, aged about 12 years 5. Ku. Ranjana Saxena, D/o. Late Arun Saxena, aged about 10 years, 6. Dhirendra Kumar Saxena, S/o. Late Lajpatrai Saxena, aged about 75 years, No.3 to 5 minors, through natural guardian mother appellant no.l Smt. Uma Saxena, No.2 to 6 R/o. Qtr.No.44/3 Radhika Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg AWARD AMOUNT VALUATION OF PRESENT APPEAL (Claimants) Rs.10,19,768/- Rs.10,19,768/- ^ MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S. 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 •k '^••^^ '^ <ks^ %^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DB: HON»BLBI.M. QUDDUSI & HON*BLB N. K. AGRAWAL, JJ MISC. APPBAL (Cl N0.514 OF 2009 Vs. APPEARANCB: Mr. Guataoi Khetorapal, counsel for fhe appellaat. Mr. Shwendu Paadya, counsel for respondents 2 to 6. Per I.M. QUDDUSI, J ORDBR (ORALI (27.09.2010) 1. This is aa adniitted appeal. Counsel for parties haye agreed to argue the inatter JBmaUy, Therefore, with the consent of counsel for bofh fhe parties, fhe matter has been heard fiaaUy. 2. This appeal has been filed by fhe Insuraace Company s^aiast fhe quantuia of fhe imipugned award dated 29th November, 2008 passed by fhe XI Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Durg. ^ 3. The cross objections under Order 41 Rule 22 offhe Code of Civil Procediu-e has also been j51ed by fhe clauaiants for enhancenient oftiie award. 4. Learaed couxisel for fhe Insurance Company has submitted fhat the laultipUer adopted by fhe MACT is on higher side APPELLANT National Insurance Coinpany Ltd RB8PONDBNTS Kasinira Siagh aad ofhers ^f.'-^, aad has also raised objection regardiag rcduction of personal expenses. S. Respondent no. 1 Kashniira Siagh is the owner of Truck bearing Regn.No.C.G.07-C/3445 aad on the date of accident, he was driviag fhe offending vehicle. He has died, fherefore, he is represented fhrough his wife beiag legal representatlve, 6. Bnef facts of the case accordmg to fhe version of claimants are as under: (i) On 16.03.2006 Arun Saxena (deceased) was coming froin Naadini Nagar by ndiag his Motorcycle beariug Reg.No.07-C/3537 towards Housiag Board crossiag Foii2inagar. At that tiiae, a Truck bearing Regn. No.07-C/3445, which was being rashly and negUgenUy driveu by respondent no.l KasTimira Siagh, dashed fhe niotorcycle of the deceased froni back side, as a result of which fhe head aad arm of the deceased were crushed aad he died on fhe spot aad one pedestriaa Ainar Siagh who was dashed by the said Truck at sonie distaace in. fhe saine accident has also sustamed iajury, At fhe tune ofaccident, fhe offendiag Truck was iasured wifh fhe AppeUaat/ Insuraiice Conipaay. (ii) The deceased was studyiag ICW.A.Z whUe workmg as Professional Accountaat ia difiFerent firms/ iadustnes iacludiag V.N. Industries, Jaiswal Equipxnents aad Holdings Private Limited, Adit Ispat aad Bhatia Funiiture etc., aad was eaniiag • •^:- <^3 Rs.16,500/- per mionfh. The appeUaats are dependents on fhe iacome ofthe deceased. They filed a claioi applicatiou clafcimng to the tuue of Rs.43,37,000/- on all possible heads. 7. The Claimaats have produced fhe earamg detaUs of the deceased from fhe year 2004 to 2006. It was made out that the deceased was having different iacomes froin different firms m eveiy year. In fhe mcome tax retium fited by fhe deceased for fhe assessinent year 2005-2006, the iacoxne of fhe deceased was assessed as Rs.92,171/-. In support of his eanuugs, fhe claimants have examined Arpit Rai (A.W.3), Gurjeet Smgh (A.W.4) and Simil Shrivastava (A.W.5). 8. The Tribiinal has held fhat the vehicle beadxig Regn.No.C.G.07-C/3345 was involved in the accident occiirred on 16.03.2006 in wliich Arun Kumar died and the result of accident was due to rash aad negUgent driviag of non-appUcaat no.l, The Tribunal further opined that fhe iusurer of fhe motorcycle bearing Regn.No.C.G.07-C/3537 is not a necessary party aad fhe appeUaat is primarily responsible for payaient offhe compensation. The Tribunal has taken into account the income of fhe deceased for fhe year 2005-2006 which was Rs.84,189/- Scom diflferent sources of iacome. The Tribunal has opiaed fhat it would be appropriate to deduct 20% towards personal expenses, Looking to the age group of the deceased tih.at is 40-45 years, -Khe Tribunal has adopted fhe miiltiplier of 15 on fhe basis of second schediile of Motor Vehicles Act As such, it ^~^^^ ^%^ ^.^ fl^-^^fi csy ^x:^" fe21 has worked out the aanual dependency as Rs,67,351-20 aiid the total dependency as Rs.10,10,268/-. Besides fhis, fhe tribiinal has graated Rs.9,500/- ia aU under fhe other heads. As such, fhe Tribunal has fixed the total coxnpensation of Rs.10,19,768/- which the claimaats are entitled to receive finom the appeUaat wifhia two months from 30.06.2006 and in case fhe said aaiount is not paid wifhia fbe above period, fhe aforesaid aaiount shatl cany ititerest @ 8% per aanuam. 9. Mr. Gautam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellaiit submits fhat ia case of Sdrta Vemw. (Smt.) and athef^s - vs- Delhi Tremspart CarporaUan cmd cinather (2009) 6 SCC 1-21 the DiultipUer scale has been given accoidirig to which the inultipUer 14 has been prescribed for flie persons betw^een the age group of 41-45 aad ia paragraph 30, it has been laid down fhat where the deceased was married, fhe deduction towards personal aad Uving expenses of the deceased, should be one-fhird (1/3) where the xiuiiiber of dependent famUy members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (l/4th) where fhe nuniber of dependent famity nieiabers is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (l/5th) where fhe number ofdependent fairdly inenibers exceeds 6. 10. Mr. Shivendu Paadya, learaed counsel for fhe objectors/rcspondents 2 to 6 subinits fhat fhe learaed Tribzinal has granted a meager amount of Rs.9,500/- m all under ofher heads tihiat is loss of consortiuin, loss of love and affection aad funeral expenses etc. He further contends fhat looking to fhe future prospects, flie leanied Tribunal ^36 i'- ought to have taken iato account the iacome ofRs.92,171/- earaed by the deceased for fhie fiiiancial year 2004-2005 as shown ia tfae iacome tax retura for fhe assessment year 2005-2006 filed before fhe Incoiae Tax Departaient iastead of Rs.84,189/- fhat is fhe iacoine for the JBnaacial year 2005-2006. 11. Wifh regard to cross objections, we have considered the iaconie tax retura of fhe deceased. The MACT has taken aanual iacoine of fhe deceased JBroni April 2005 to March 2006 i.e., Rs.84,189/- but fhe deceased submitted fhe iacome tax retura for the assessment year 2005-2006 fhat is for the finaacial year from 1st April 2004 to 31st March 2005 showiag his iacoiae as Rs.92,107/- which has been proved by A.W.6 K,L, SioJia, an eiaployee offhe Income Tax Department The person who was aged about 42 years would have gafcaed morc ia fiiture had he been aMve. Furtlier fhe Tribunal has not properly awarded conipensation ia respect ofofher heads that is loss of love aad affection, funeral expenses, loss ofconsortiuxn to the spouse and loss of estate. To our opiaion, siace fhe deceased was haviag children of aged about 10 years, 12 years & 14 years aad atl were ia weU growiag stage therefore, loss of love aad aflTection towards each child ought to have been Rs.10,000/- and Rs.30,000/- for the fhree children, The aaiount of consorduxn to a widow who was also aged about 41 years when fhe accident took place ought to have been Rs.15,000/- aad for loss of love aad affection to fhe father who was s^ed about 75 years ought to have been Rs 5000/- aad fhe funeral expenses should y^ f^ '-.\ have been Rs.5000/-. Therefore, m tihis way, fhe total amount under fhe other heads would come to Rs.60,000/- ia aU. 12-. Ifwe take the aanual iacome of Rs.92,171/- considenng the future prospects of fhe deceased aad applyiag the prmciples laid down ia Sarla Verma's case fsupra) if we deduct one-fourth towards personal expenses, the annual dependency would come to Rs.69,128/- aad fiirther ifwe use the multipUer 14, fhe total dependency would come to Rs.9,67,792/-. As worked out above, ifwe add Rs.60,000/- under other heads, fhe total compensation would be Rs.10,27,792/- which is ahnost equal to the amount awarded by fhe Tribunal. Therefore, we do not find any scope of iaterference ia tibie aiaount of couipensatioxi awarded by fhe Tribiinal, Hence fhe appeal as well as cross objections arc disnussed. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Rao