y^ ^^-ir/ IN THE H^N'BLE HlriH'COURT OF CHHATriSGARH IAT ! BILASPUR fC.G.) ' ': M. A. (C) N0. 1^-hfi OF 2009 (D.B.; .APPELLANT vriA^ .......;3^i":' .^wy^'" ^^g^^^^^^^ais" ' !.| RESPONDENTS 2. 3... (t-— 4, ^ /'" - Ganeshram Chandrakar S/o Khorbahra Chandrakar, aged about 45 years, R/o Ward No.02, Shantinagar Bagbahra, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (C.G.). (Owner of vehicle bearing registration No. i C.G. VERSUS • • Smt. Budhyarinbai Goswaini W/o Late Dr, Mbhan Goswanii, aged about 55 years; Manharan Goswami S/o Late Dr. Mohan Goswarai, aged about32, years; . ^ : Both R/o Village Jamgaon, Police Station Bagbahra, Tahsil and Oistrict Mahasamund (C.G.). Sevakrarh Gond S/'o Sonuram Gond, aged about 25 years, R/o Village Hathigarh, Police Station Tumgaon, Post Sukhd.dabr^, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (C'.GJ. (river of vehicle Reliance General'In'surance : Company Limited, Ravi Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur fC.G.). Period from 18.10.2006to 2. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDE'R SPXTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEH1CLE ACT. 1988 ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri I.M. Quddusi, and Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. M.A. (0 No. 1260 of 2009 APPELLANT Ganeshram Chandrakar. Versus RESPONDENTS Smt. Budhyarinbai Goswami and others. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 Shri M.K. Bhaduri and Shri P.K. Tulsiyan, counsel for the appellant. Shri C.K. Sahu, counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri Spurabh Sharina, counsel for respondent No. 4. ORAL ORDER (19/01/2011) Following oral order I. M. Quddusi,J. of the Court was passed by 1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned award dated 04/08/2009, passed by the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 116/2009 by which the clairaants have been awarded Rs.7,24,000 /- as compensation, holding that the owner and driver are liable to pay the amount of compensation, jointly or severally. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 7/12/2008 in the afternoon deceased Dr. Mohan Goswami Went to Bagbahara from his village Jamgaon. When he was returning to his village on his motorcycle, at about 5 p.m. in the evening near Bokramuda Road, Jamgaon, a Pickup Tata, bearing Registration No. C.G. 04-J.B.-2879, being driven rashly and negligently by Non-applicant No.l dashed the motorcycle, due to which Dr. Mohan Goswami received injuries on his head and he died on the spot. The deceased was aged about 58 ^- years, he was a doctor and used to eam Rs.300/- per day. The claimants have claimed compensation ofRs. 12,20,OOO/- We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record. It is evident that although the offending vehicle was a light raotor vehicle but was insured as a 'coinmercial vehicle' and therefore the licence for driving commerGial motor vehicle was required by the driver of tbe vehicle. It is evident that the driver was having only private light motor vehicle licence issued for a period of 20 years and as such it cannot be said that there was no breach of the insurance policy. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly held the owner and driver liable for payment of the amount of compensation, exonerating the Insurance Company froin any liability, because there was a breach of the conditions of the insurance policy. The next contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant is regarding quantum. The monthly income of the deceased was assessed by the Tribunal as Rs. 9000/-. After deducdng l/3rd on the personal and living expenses the yearly dependency was assessed as Rs. 72,000/- and looking to the age of the deceased as 58 years the multiplier of 10 was applied, resulting in total loss of dependency as Rs. 7,20,000/-. In addition to this the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 2000/- to fhe widow towards consortium. Thus, a total award ofRs. 7,24,000/- has been granted. Having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record we are of the opinion that the deceased, who was practicing as a homeopathic doctor in remote area, his monthly income can be assessed as Rs. 6500/- per month, instead ofRs. 9000/- per month SSh '""» 7. 8. as there was only a selfsame statement of the claimants and no document about the monthly income of the deceased was produced. Thus we assess the nionthly inconie of the deceased as Rs. 6500/- and yearly income as Rs. 78,000/-. After deducting l/3rd on the personal and living expenses ofthe deceased theyeariy dependency comes to Rs. 52,000/-. Looking to the age of the deceased as 58 years and taking into account that there are only two dependents, according to the ratio in the decision of Hon'bleApex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporatlon and another1 we apply the multiplier of 9. Thus, we award Rs. 4,68,000/- towards loss of dependency to the claimants. Looking to the facts situation, we are of the opinion that the claimants are entitled for Rs. 10,000/- each (Rs. 20,000/-) towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 5000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate, the total of which comes to Rs. 35,000/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs. 5,03,000/-. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award is rnodified to the extent that the claimants are entitled to a sum ofRs. 5,03,OOO/- as total compensation. Rest ofthe conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddussi Judge Prashant Kumar Judge Mishra