FEEI WIBMAy as BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT APPELLANT i " ‘ ON-APPLICANT No. 3 BILASPUR mwsmn Bench M.A. Nof O I 9 é I OF 2005. - {,United India Insurance Company, Shamtl Bhawan, Albert Ekka Chowk, Ranchj, Local office- United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Gopi Talkies Road, Raigarh (C.G.) l VERSUS (L :— 1. Thunibai, wife of smmnathpaste Khadiya Aged about 38 years, Occupation Agricu— ltural labour, r . Sukhnath, son of Kalo, Caste Khadiya, aged about V 40 years, Occupation. ii Agricultural labour, Both resident of Village Pamshala, ‘Tahsil Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpurnagar (Chhattisgarh), CLAIMANTS, 3 Ahayazar Minj, son of Jayman Minj', ged about 41 years Occupation Vehicle Driver, re81dent - of Housmg Board Colony, Chalcradhar Nagar, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.,G.), 4. Anthriyat Bang (correct name Bag); son of Esthepan Bag, aged about 58 years, Occupation Vehicle Owner resident of Vlllage Jabala (Tapkara) Tahs1l Kunkuri D1str1ct Jashpur Nagar (Chhatt1sgarh) NON-APPLICA‘M‘S NO l AND 2 @hd..2.. nt HI6H COURT OF CHHATTI5§ARH AT EiLASPiR DIWSION 3ENCH: HON‘BLE MR. I.k1.QUDDU$I & O' LE MR PR14$HANT KUMAk MISHW mam No.i361 OF 2on5 UniTed India Insurance Company Limiwd. Versus RESPCNDENTS n : Thunibai and ofhers. APP‘EILANT m _Presenf Shm Pankcg Agarwal cou’nsei for The appeilan‘r ghr’i Vishnu Kosnfa counSel for" We respondem‘s No 1 & 2 l hone for respordenf Nos 3 & 4 fhough served ~ OML ORDER ~ (12“ January, 2011} Per LM. Quddusi, J. [ L‘T'he appellanT-Insur'ance Company has preferred This appeal agains'r The award dated 23.04.2005 passed in Claim Case NoJ/2004 by the learned 3rd Addi‘rional Mofor Aqciden‘t Ciaims Tribuna1, Raigarh (CG) (for 'shor‘r "fhe Tribundi’) aiiowing The daim apphcafion offhe claimams. 3. the appeHanf Insurance company had assailed The Impuaned award mamiy an The ground of quan1'um and In This regard permissmn under Sec1'lon 170 of The .Mofer m Vehicles Act 1988 has been gran‘red To The agpeHanT. 3. Facts of The case in brie-F are ThaT an 13.06.2002 aT abouT 3.30 p.m. due To 1 rash and negiigen'r driving by The driver of vehicje bearing regisTraTion number C(i14fZD/0125 deceased DroT Kumar came under The rear wheel of The said vehicle and died on The spoT due To injuries susTained by him. The T ciaimanTls have claimed compensaTion of Rs.19,92,000/- under various heads on The ground ThaT They were dependenTs on The deceased and due To his unTimely deaTh They have suffered loss of income. l 4. The iea'rned Tribunal, on a close scruTiny of evidence adduced, maTeriaI available on record and submissions made by The parTies awarded a sum of RS4 35 OOOf— To The claimanTs along WiTh inTeresT @ 6% per annum from j The daTe of The applicaTion HN B 53. " Cw Léar'neid counsel for The appeilanT-insurance company argued Tha'r me'rhod appliecil by The Tribunal for caiculafing ioss of dependency was defective. He fu Ther' submi'r'red fhm‘ iooking To The age of The parem‘s of The deceased, who was bacheior, The muiTiplierrapplied by The Tribunal is also noT correcT. ’On The oTher hand, ieanned counsel for- r'espondenT No.1 & 2 has supporTed The impugned award. . We ha e heard learned counsel Tor The parTIes and perused The records of The Trlbunal as also The Tlndmgs gwen In The Impugned award T u On careful examinaTion of The impugned award, we find ThaT The Tribunal while oalculaTing The‘loss af dependency has deducTed only 1.13” Towards The peirsonal expendiTure of The deceased, whereas as per The decision of The Hon’ble Apex CourT in The maTTer of'5arfa Verma (Stat) and omens - vs- Deiiw‘ Transgerr Comarofion and marker reporTed in £009) 5 5i? - iai, lThe Tribunal should have deducTed 50% Towards personal expendiTures as The deceased was bachelor and iT is assumed ThaT a bachelor would Tend To spend more on him as self—mainTenance and Therefore, we are of The opinion ThaT ouT of ToTal income ofThe deceased, 50% of The some should have been deducTed by The Tribunal Towards persorlal expendiTure. Thus, afrer deducTing 50% from The annual income of The; deceased i.e. Rs.36,000/-, as calculaTed by The T‘ribunal, The ToTal loss of income would come To Rs.18,000l— p.a. FUrTher, mulTiplier applied by The Tribunal in The presenT case is also noT proper in view of The judgmenfof The Hon’ble Apex‘CourT in The maTTer of Sorilo Vermab case (supra) as according To This judgmenT mulTiplier of 15 is To be made applicable upTo The age of 40 years. Thus, after applying The mu‘llTiplier of 15 in The amounT of annual loss of income of The deceased i.e. Rs.l18000l—, The ToTal loss of dependency would come To Rs.2,70,000/~ (2400Qx15). Besides This, The claimanTs are also enTiTled for Rs.5000/~ Towards funeral expenses, Rs.i0,000/- each Towards loss of love and affecTion and Rs.10000/- Towards loss of esTaTe. \ . . . (y 9. In The result The appeal is parfly aHowed, fhe impugned award is modify 'ro The extenf Thu? now The ciaimanTs are enTiTied for The compensaTion of Rs.3,05,000/- in a" along wiTh inTer-esT @ 6% p.a. from The daTe of ”Filing of applicaTion Till paymenT is made acTually. OuT of This, Rs.2}05,000/- shall be deposiTed in The fixed deposiT Scheme of a naTidnalized bank, however, The Tribunal shall allow The wiThdrawal of The said amounT Tc The claimanTs on moving applicaTion by Them sTaT'ing good reasons Therein. ResT of The amounT shall be paid in cash To The claimanTs along wiTh inTer‘esT. 4 r 10. The iagpeal is allowed in parT To The exTenT indicaTed above. No order as To Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ma.