y~'~" •DIUJS/\ +DM5DL|g S+DI j.o fwopim 'iog OL|>|ajns '4.015 -J3l|+OlU UOIpJDnB |Djn+DU Jj3L|4. L|6nOJ44. SJOU]U) 3JD <7 04. 2'0[\| •SJDSX / pa6D 'DU4Js/\ 4.D/»i6Dqg 34.D-] J.O UOS 'DUIJ3/\ FDJAn^ '^ •SJDSX II ps6D 'DUIJ3/\ 4.DM6Dl|g 3+D-] j.o uos 'Diuj3/\ nfoy •g •SJDSX £1 p36o 'DIUJ3/\ 4.DM6Dqg 34.0-] j.o js4.L|6nop 'Diuja/\ IUIIUDX uDiun>| '2 •SJD9A ^£ pa6o 'DIUJS/\ 4.oM6Di|g 34.01 f.o mopiM 'iog D4>jsjns '4-ius 'I .^''^ SA •6jnq +3U+SIQ 'D|jag -g'd '? IJS4DJ. 'uooSpuouy s6D||]/\ j.o 4.uap!S3J '+sun+insuSy -uo]4.odn33Q 'sjosA 82 paSo 'nqog uiojnjnq^ IJL|S J.o uos '|D|UD(wnt|g •g (93) 6Jn<3 •1.3U1S.IQ 'D|jsg 'S'd '? I.IS^DJ. 'UODBpUDUy 36D||j/\ j.0 4.U3plS3J 'J3AUq-U014.Ddn330 'SJDS^ ^g psSo 'nqo9 uiojnjnq^ uifs -^ j.o uos 'nqog jDiun» t|so4.uos "[ 1.^ r ^ ^ ^ IBi| l3S|6;nil ^y^ (S4.UDUI)D|.3') :S±N3QNOdS3a •*;'t. . .ap, l,^v\'-^"C'-6^n^ ^ (S+UDOjjddD-U&N) ••S±NVT}3ddV 600Z/ -L<? "ON [3] 1y3ddV"3SIW T .^*J andsv'iia j.v aanj-v^iQnr do lano^ HSIH 3HJ. NI ^y All are residents of Village Anandgaon, Tahsil <& P.S. Berla, District Durg. MISCELLEANOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 ^' CORAM: Hon'bie Shri I.FfS. Quddusi, J. & Hon'bie Shri y^-^v^4r I^El!fnn^6B" SlJli^ &^,^-f» E m.A. t'C'i No. 7 of versus Ri intosh Kumar Sahu and another. Smt. Surekha Bai and others. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava and Shri Malay Shrivastava, counsei for the appellants. Shri K.K. Dewangan, counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4. M.A.fCLNo. 10ofJ rtosn Kun Smt. Geeta Bal Sahu and others. id Shrl Snrivastava, counsel Tor the Sdri Rajeev Shrivastava W^^VMW.-f. Shri K.K. Ds'wangan, counsei for respondsnts No, "I to 3. holiowina orai I, IVI. Quddusi. J. / 36/04/2011i rder or the Court ssea DV These are two appeals arising out of ihe same accideni by the owner and driver of the vehlcie i.e. tractor a!ong with trolley, against the impugned award 26/09/2008 passed by Additionai Motor Accident Clalms Tribunal, (F.T.C.) Bemetara, District - Dura (C.G.) in Claim Case Nos. 29/2008 and 30/2008 dlrecting to pay compensation to the claimants to the tune of Rs.4,02,500/- and Rs.2,82,500/- respectively along with 6% simple interest from the date of filing of the claim pemion tiil the date of awaro, but in case the amount is not wtthin one month from the date ^ .-s^- 2.- of award the ciaimants wifi be entitied for additlonal interest @. 6% tiil its payment is made. (2) Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the claim petliion, are that on 19/01/2008 at about 6.00 p.m. (evening) deceased Bhagwat verma and Khelan were going from Beria to Anandgaon in Tractor attached with "roiley bearing registration No. C.G. 04/Z.G./2084 and 2085. When they reached near Sorla turnina, due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by non-appiicant No.1, Bhagwat Verma and Kheian fell down from the 'ractor and were crushed. Both of them died. Deceased Bhagvat verma was aged about 37 years and was working as a mason. Deceased Khelan was aged about 35 years and used to eam Rs.96,000/'- per year by doing agricuiturai work. Ci'aimants in Claim Case No. 29/08 have ciaimed compensation of Rs.37,17,000/- and claimants in Claim Case No. 30/2008 have claimed compensation of Rs.20,95,000/-. (3) Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that deceased Bhagwat Verma and Khelan have consumed tiquor and thereafter sat on the troltey of the tractor when the driver was pouring fuel from petroi purnp. He has further submitted that there is contradiction in the ststements of the witness regarding the position of the trolley. He has also challenyed the quantum fixed by the Tribunal. (4) We have perused the post mortem reports of t'ne deceased and found.that there is no vyhlspsr about the consumption of alcoho! by any of the deceased. Further it was not disputed that the deceased were sittinc on the troliey of the tractor and died due to accident with the tractor trotiey. For the rest of the facts, if there are contradictlons they are immateriai. was the responsibiiity of the appellants not to allow the deceased to sit in the troiley where there •was no sitting capacity. if they have allowed the aeceased and tne accident had taxen place wnile tne anver was anving 5 fractor, it is the responsibility of the appellants to pay compensation to the claimants. (5) In M.A.(C) No. 7/2009 with regard to t'ne quantum, we 'nave found that the monthiy income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs.3000/- sind snriiisl incoms C'QTISS to Rs.36.000/-. 1/3'u hss b@$n dsductsd for personal and iivina expenses of the deceased, but in the case of Saria verma fSmt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 12009) S S.C.C. 121 it has been laid-down that if the number of dependents is 4 to 6, % or the income shoula' be deducted for persona! and iiving expenses. Muitipiier of 16 has been applied by the Tribunal which is wrong. According to the age of the deceased 37 years, a muitiplier of 15 was aDpiicable accordlna to the Saria Verma (supra) case but after deducilng % frorn Rs.36,000/- i.e. annual income, for personal and iivins expenses of the deceased the remainder c-omes to Rs.27,000/- and after appiying a multiplierof 15 itcomes to Rs. 4,05,000;'-, w'nereas the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,84,C'00/- as ioss of dependency, therefore it is on lesser side hence no interference is required therein as there is no cross objection on tne side onhe ciaimants. (6) In M.A.(C) No.10/2009 with regard to the quantum, we h-ave found that the monthly income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs.3000/- snd snnusl incofns comss to Rs.SS.QOQ/-. 1/3 hss fc'ssn d^duet^d for personai- and !iving expenses of t'ne deceased 'A'hich is correct accordinfl to Sarla Verma (supra) in which !t has been iaid-down that if ths number or deoendsnfs is 2 to 3, 1/3 of the incoms shouid be deducted for Dsrsonai and ilving expenses. Multipiier of 11 has been applied by t'ne Tribunal which is also correct as the deceased was ased about 55 years, therefore according to the scaie given in Saria Verma case multipiier of 11 is made applicable. Afte.r deducting 1'3ro from Rs.36,000/- i.a. annual income, for i A l'°-»s®^ ^s^?..'" ,;'•'- 'Ly^-...,.I. ^..""^ -^- personal and living expenses of the deceased the remainder comes to Rs.24,000/- and after applying a multlplier of 11 it comes to Rs. 2,64,000,'- as loss of dependency. Therefore, no interference is required thereln. (7) in vievif of the above, none of the poir.ts is sustainable in the eye of iaw. Both the appeals are, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. SA'- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- '.' Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge 1 ^ ^[^^M^~^ s^^^^ms^^^^^r~