S! kSfilteMi .l&lS&h Jl|££,j: [I |;:;i861a1rN^)lfii;i££S^aiy-^^^1'ltl:-N^ H;...::;:'.: •• ^. 1' ! [iB»y-tjBty- & iay?pp ' i|lailjai*V-^tilib »1i»t.JI(t |*s@i/J6&|*Vi^ji^iafe Luifi-j *Mfi| £S filffi *ltU& 5ri& a^jaiftb —t; it-ai Jtai^d) jtUlBj S y^KQB 'iai^ife ^lt.UJ ^! Xpt..*(^hlB^B U;llbuJ ^ ^ *K1B 2£ Blff 'fiill-tt 3idb bialb ^lbUg 'Z-AUrflfeBI-i Ibffi -* • • •• •&1b»t.UP J •te'S | llsi^ib llalnj fi loyiSB lta;i (^i *lt> U.ita afttbl-J II* os/e/4^^ Apiw-|.,»i j, 'taatLiflUs JJ^(3 'MJi /,<» fiUE Ml23J.il£ AdAfcLltl > ^p) ^, [f ^[f" [,fttt[j& -S^ '&Ui 8*t &LB . . LtaJLM tatOm &ib Z 'Z-airf^B l-U^tafa-a5^liE ^ ...-•••'!^A S' _ o.\'.>y .^^^" A s blte^lhPliibtfclltia -| ;^. —1^)«*«« ^\ (nh-.pJDtUJP ie<a I i&L(A ijay.fi JSU??P JX^ <L'SIISIIEIld' •syyi '&btahtldiP^ 'ABfii IRllli S^hjuj ^ &Lyjl£SJSblH^ /' m^ '"'' '" ' g SOOZ/'t;-'^** *b *A*tA i--^ * - -' 7^0 .- — - *ll*S 1 >liKlllo!sJ *hUlt?lt>- b-»P 3i»u^tun liy±fcijj; •*•••*«• s-Mtti if^ii-e -'tf ^ii&yar /' la>. •>';''f.y<-B;'.:"Wt'^':- -.-r,-iU'lli-Ul HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT M.A.No. 824 of 2003 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus RESPONDENTS : Ramashankar Upadhyay & Others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT DB: Hon'bte Shri Justice t.M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal. Present : Shri Srlkumar Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Shri Anand Gupta, Advocate for theappellant. Smt. Renu Kochar, Advocatefor respondent No. 1&2. Shri Janak Hidko, Advocate for respondent No. 3 & 4. ORALORDER (Passed on24ul day ofSeptember, 2010) Per: I.M. Quddusi, J. 1. This is a insurer's appeal against the award dated 05.05.2003, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Cfaims Tribunat Korba (for shortthe Tribunal) in Claim Case N0.128/2)02, awarding anamount of Rs. 5,06,000/- to the claimantsalong with interest @ 9 percent per annum from the date of application till itsjrayment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 20.04.02, Umesh Kumar Upadhyay (since deceased), while going to Dabhra along with his friends by Tempo bearing registration No. CG 12- 7699, the said Tempo turned turtle due to which Umesh Kumar Upadhyay succumbed tothe injuries sustemed inthe saidaccklent. ;"' i& •:l'Si 'v&SK^r-"'i^ S- ? 'ls 1 ^'^l^ llta.ri.l'"' :il?liSS;!ii^! c^ 3. The claimant's i.e. unfortunate parents of cteceased Umesh Kumar Upadhyay, claimed a compensation of Rs. 31,50,000/- by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'Act,1988') for death of their son in the said accident. 4. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, the material available on the record, and submissions of the parties, held that claimant's son died on account of injuries sustained by him in the motor accident dated 20.04.02, assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 27001- per month i.e. Rs. 32,400/- per annum and by applying multiplier of 15, awarded Rs. 4,86,000/-on account of loss of dependency. The Tribunal further awarded Rs. 10,000/- on account offuneral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- on account of love and affection, and thus awarded Rs. 5,06,000/- as total compensation in favour of claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of applicatlon till its payment. 5. The only contention raised by the leamed counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company is that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiptier of 15. He further submtts that in view of decision of Supreme Court in case of Municlpal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman lyer & Another, reported in 2003 (8) SCC 731, the multiplier 10 ought to have been applied in thepresent case. i.1:,. ^. .li' I: liii-—1-'-. 6. We have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order Impugned. 7. As the claimants are parents of the unmamed son, the appropriate multiplier, in view of the dictuffl of the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman lyer & Another, reported in 2003 (8) SCC 731, those cases wherethe claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier never exceed 10, and therefore, the multipller apptied 15 in the pr^nt case is certalnly on higherside. 8. In a motor accident claim case, as per Section 168 of the Motor Vehlcles Act, 1988, what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal should be just and proper compensatton in the facts and circumstance of each case. It is neither a bounty nor charity. 9. Taking into all relevant factore into account and taking Into aecount the dtetum of Supreme Court in case of Municipal Corporatlon of Greater Bombay v. Laxman lyer & Another, in our opinion, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. By applying the multiplier of 10 as applied in case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman lyer & Another (Supra) , the toss of dependency would be Rs. 3,24,000/-. By adding further sum of Rs. 10,000/- on account of funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/-onaccount of love and affectton as awarded by the Tribunal, the clatmants are entitled for Rs. 3,44,000/- as compensation. Sahu 10. In the results, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants are entitled Tor sum of Rs. 3,44,000/- in ptace of Rs. 5,06,000/- alongwith interest @ 9 percent per annum from the date of application till its payment as ordered by the Tribunal. The appellanVinsurance company is directed to pay Rs. 3,44,000/- in place of Rs. 5,06,000/- to the claimants within a periodof three months from today. No order asto costs. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge / •-