r1T?T 'A-.S. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH </- AT BILASPUR M.A.(C.) No:2/.!^7:Q./^ee9 APPELLANTS : 1) Division Bendl <ii9-'"'"...»^ ^•^ft^ •", ...--•" 9 3) Lomesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Omprakash Sahu Aged about 22 years, R/o ViUage : Bhatheli, Tahsil Bhakhara, District Dhamtari (C.G.) Omprakash @ Onkar S/o Shri Kalanath Sahu Aged about 50 years R/o Village Bhatheli, Tahsil Bhakhara, District Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1) 2) (^ 31 /" ^•'. Shivdayal Sahu S/o Late Kanwal Sai Sahu Aged about 45 years R/o Vmage Bhatheli, Police station Bhakhara, Tahsil Kurud District Dhamtari (C.G.) Smt. Shivbati Sahu W/o Shivdayal Sahu, Aged about 40 years, R/o VUlage Bhatheli, Police station Bhakhara, Tahsil Kurud District Dhamtari (C.G.) Kumari Dileshwari Sahu D/o Shivdayal Sahu Minor through legal representative D/o Shivdayal Sahu R/o ViUage BhatheU, Police station T y Bhakhara, Tahsil Kurud District Dhamtari (C.G.) ^,4) The Oriental Insurance Company Liinited, Branch behind Amar Talkies, Dhamtari (C.G.) MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988. •^- COCRT OF CfflKATKSGARH ATBnASPOR M.A. (Ct N0. 217 OF 2010 APPELLANTS SSSPOWSESSTS Lomesh Kumar Sahu and another Versus Shlvdayal Sahu and others. APPBAL UNDEai SECTION 173 OP THB KQfSOS. VEHICLES ACT. 1988 D.B.: Hon'ble Sfari I.M. Ouddurf & Hon'ble Shri G. Minhaluddin. JJ. Present; — Shri Viyek Ratbore, coirnsd fbr fhe appeltents. Sliri Aditya Kuniar, couasel for r^pondents No.ltoS. Shri Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.4. ORALORDER (Passed oa C0nd day ofSeptember, 2011) This appeal has been filed by (he appellacts (E)river & Owner) agaiiist tlie Impi^aed award dated 17-04-2009 passed by fhe Additional Motor Aecident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtai'i (for Short the Glatais Trlbunal^ in Glaim C&se No.05/2008, ln so far as it fdates to quantum part orQy. 2. It is admitted aad undlsputed fect that at fhe tune of accldent Lomesh Kumar/appeUaiit No. 1 was driving fhe Tractor-trolley bearir^ reglstration No. C.G. 05-B/6656 aiid TroBey No. C.O. 05-B/6657. It Is not la dlspute thafc Omprakash @ Onkar was registered owaer of (he tractor- troUey which was insured by respondent No.4/Insurance Companiy. It is also not in dlspute that Hirendra Safau, Tarun Kumar, Sewak Ram, Shiv Kumar and Top Singh were sittmg on ttie tractor-trolley. Hlndra Sahu succumbed to the lajiu-ies and Tarun Kumai', Sewak Rau, Sliiv Kiunar and Top Singh sustained injurles, In ttie accldent. \ F fC^ S 'VQSSSfh '"s;i •^'^ r^ 3. Brief facte of fhe case are that on 31-08-2007, Hirendra, Top Singh, Tarun Kumar, Sewak Ram and Shlv Kumar were going tcwards agrlculture fields of Onkar Sahu in ftie Tractor-trolley bearix^ I'egistiatlon No. C.G. )5-B/6656 and TroUey No. C.G. 05-B/6657 from ViUage Bhaakhara to village Koliyari. At time of accldeat, appellant No. l- Lomesh Kuaiar Sahu was drlviag ffae sald tractor-ti'olley In a rasSi and negligent maiuier as a result ofwhlch fhe sald ti-actor-troUey turned turtle. On acoount of the sald accident, aU persons traveling ia the ti'actor- trolley sustalned mjurles euid Hlrendra succiunbed to fhe injiiries during treatment A report to fhls effect has lodged in the Pollce Statlon and an offeace under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC has been re^lstered and a charge-sheet has been ffled in fhe Court <rf Judlcial Maglstrate, Flret Class, Kurud. 4. The claimants tieisg 1egal heirs cS the deceased Hu-endra Saliu have ffled a petltlon uader Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short fhe Act>) before fhe Claims Tribunal damung a total compensatlon of Rs. 14,55,000/- for the death ofthe deceased. 5. Learned Glaims Tribunal on a ctose scrutlny of evidence led, materlal placed and submlsslons made by the parties, has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,75,000/- along with slmple mterest @ 8% per annum flrom the date of appllcatlon till it 1s payment. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the partles and perused tlie records of the Claims Tribunal as weU as fhe impugned award. 7. At the tlme of ftie acxddent, the dex^ased was a bachelor of 22 years. The Claims Tribuual has deducted only l/3rd towards personal .expenses fl'om his income. It 1s a weU setfled law laid down by HonWe the Apex Court ;';au??-^ ui UiB casse of Sccrlai.Vwma. (Smfc^ fwd vthers -ws- De'tU Tra.n^ywrt CwrpwvMwn. wnd suwfftw^ i^epui-led hi ^OW) 6 SCC 131 that when fhe claim has been flted ty the claimants where fhe deceased was bachelor % (h^f) oftfae income shall be deducted for personal aiid Uvlng expenses and the average age of the parents will be considered for applyiug the multiplier. In this case, the aiinual income of the deceased assessed by the Claims Tribunal was Rs. 36,000/- and fhe age of the parente was 45 and 40 years that is to say tliat the average age of the pai^ents was 43 years. Therefore, the multlplier of 14 would be applicable. Hence, we award a total sum ofRs. 2,02,000/- (18,000 X 14) towafds loss of dependency. Besides thls, fhe clakaatits are entltled to get Rs. 10,000/- towards loss crf estate and Rs. 5,000/- towafds funeral expenses. Thus, fhe total aoaoiiat of Gompensation would come to Rs.2,67,OQO/-. On thls amount, efte dalinaate wiB be entitled to get siiaple Interest @ 6% per amium fl-om fhe date of claim petition till its payment to tlie claiuaants. 8; Oiit of Che above amount, Rs. 2,00,000/- shaU be deposited in a fixed deposit In a natlonalized bante Ibr a period of five years In fhe jolnt nacae of Itie claiinants. Rest of fhe amount shafl be dlsbursed in cash to the clalmants iii eqiial pfoportion. 9. The impugned award is modified to the above extenfc 10. .The amount whlch has already been deposited shall be adjusted towards fhe amount ofcompensation. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. No order astocosts. ^- .1^=^ ^ a !~i Kvr .1- SA'- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G, Minhajuddin Judge