APPELLANT NON—wPLICANT ,y/V‘No. 3 If.“ United india Insurance Conpany Limited, ‘ Thraugh— Branch Manager, Korba (insurer af truck) . VERSJ’S .r $l; \6 f 6V / iN THE HO'ii'BLE gIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. MISC. APPEAL No. éé OF 2004 RE SPONDENTS ,r 5. ‘16? Smt. Shiv Kumari widow o Singh, aged 25 years Rohit Singh aged 7 years, Ramesh Singh. Mohit Singh, aged 4 years Ramesh Singh. Mohini aged l years, D/o of lae Ramesh Sing'n Natural guardian mother and ward Sm't. Shiv Kumari. All are resident of Housing Board Ke pichhe Balco Nagar, Korba Distt. Korba (C.G.) Claimgqis/apgliC§ Shyam Lal Chauhan son of Maha Singh Chauhan (Truck Driver) , aged 3O Years, Resident of Pahanda, Urge .R. Sandey son of Mohitram Sandey (Truck Owner) , aged abut 60 years, Resident of Patadi, P.S. Urga Chowki, Distt. Korba.' i’fZV/Dinesh Kumar son of Jatiram, R. Nehru Negar Balsa, Distt. Korb (C.G.) (§river of Vikrem o). f : f . t nts No, .L to 4 . 1 . o /o 'a Aur LLV‘ Ashok Kumar son of Gangara Jauharl, readent of Pump House Kzwba, Tah. & D1s+t. Korba ($6.) (Owner sf Vlkram Auto) . 9w lental insurance Comnany, Q/Thraugh- Branch Manager, Korba Distt. Korba (C.<.a.) (insurer of Vikram Aut'o) Non—$plxcants No. J. 2 ,4 to 6 o 1 AP?!:AL. UNDER SECTION 17o Or NOIOR VEHICLJIS AOL 1988. «wgf m HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. N0. 63/2004 United India Insurance Company Limited APPELLANT Versus Smt. Shiv Kumari and others DB:- HON’BLE SHRI LM. QUDDUSI 85 HON’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, JJ PRESENT :— Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate for respondent No. 9. O RAL O RD E R ' (7-9-2010) Per LM. Quddusi, J 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/ Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 31—10—2003 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, ' ,Korba in Claim Case No. 150/2002. Facts of the case in brief is that on 18—2—2002 at about when deceased Ramesh Singh was returning to his home at Balco Nagar from Mudhapar Bajar on a Vikram Auto bearing registration No. 57 KO 148, it met with an accident with truck bearing registrationr‘No. CPL 6545 being driven by respondent No. 6, as a result of which Ramesh Singh died due to the injuries sustained in the said accident. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the driver of the Vikram auto was not having valid driving licence, and therefore, due to his negligence, the accident taken place.’He further submits that the income of the deceased has been assessed on higher side. So far as the negligence on the part of the driver o Vikram auto is concerned, we cannot accept this contention because of the reason that a driver cannot be held negligent only because he does not possess valid Q RESPONDENTS f driving licence. In the instant case, in fact, the t ck driver was responsible for the accident as the truck QM on wrong side and Vikram auto was on his proper s1 and its driver tried to save the vehicle from collision with the truck. He had gone upto the extreme left but there 'was no space left to save the vehicle and the passenger. herefore, auto driver cannot be said to be responsible for the accident. The finding arrived at by' the learned M.A.C.T. concerned in this regarding cannot be interfered with. With regard to quantum, learned Tribunal has treated the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000/— per month but. there is no evidence about earning of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 4,000/-. He was vegetable seller. Therefore it is presumed that he was earning Rs. 100/— per day i.e. Rs. 8,000/— per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/—. After deducting l/3rd of the yearly income of the deceased toward his personal expenses, the yearly dependency would be worked out to Rs. 24,000/—. By applying the multiplier of ‘ 14‘ as applied by the Tribunal, the compensation towards loss of dependency would be Rs. 3,36,000/-. However, rest of the amount fixed by the Tribunal on other heads are adequate. Therefore, by adding further sum of Rs. 25,000/—,. on other heads as awarded by the learned Tribunal, the total amount of compensation would be Rs. 3,61,000/- for which the claimants are entitled with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till its payment. In View of above, we allow the appeal in part and modify the impugned award to the above extent. NO order as to costs. l L7, ... T Sdl- ' araznarag‘ l.M.Quddusi Sd/ l‘iK.AGA—RWAL Judgé l Judge