IN THEHIGH COUKT OF CHHATTBGABH AT BIL^MJR >69 ,^^ • il Misc. Appeal No. '^ " / /2003 i0 » a ^ IT Defendant No3 Nafrional Insurance Conyany Ltd., lAtt-g, Througtl Bianch Qffice, Bflasptu-(Ca). -Vei'sus iPONDENT' aauTBnt. No.1 R©PONDE ^ / Strit. ^ila, 41 yeat-s, / Wd/Q EXiannalal I^nelani, y \ Pal^sb- 22 years, S/o rharmfllal Eflnglani, RE5PONDENT Qatmant No.3 y .f^" ^ ^r- ,^' RESEONDENT 'fendant No. 1 9. i^-- Deqaak, l9years, S/o Dhatinalat RanRlani, Atl R/o Ktiauagatii, Eajnandgaon (CG) 4., Narad Ram, appTOximately 41 yeare, '•' S/o RamdMlare Gadewal, R/o Siankar Nagar, DiirgCCG.) - Driver- 5. Riyazuddin,23yeafSy ^^sf'.e S/o Badruddin Qureshi, ^e''.^\.ta.:*' R,/o Kdabadi, <.• <^ ^• s" - Owner- s .«'? ATPEAL UNDERSECTION173 OFTHE MOTORVEmCX^ACT,,19^ iNDENT fendant No. 2 ^ :lv <^%3 «» HIGH COURT <W CHHATTI8GARH. BIUUSWUR DB: HOM'BLE I.M. QUDDU8I & HON'BLB H.K. AGRAWAL, JJ M, A. No. 369 OF 200® Vs. A3PPEARAMCB: Mr. B. N. Nande, counsel for fhe AppeUant. Mr. Sushobhlt Singh, counsel for fhe Respoiident no.5. ORMiR (ORAL) (24.11.2010) Per I.M. QUTDDUSI, J 1. Thte appeal has been filed by fhe Insuraace Compaay against impugned award dated 28.02.2003 passed by the Addl. Motor Accident Claiins Tribunal, Khairagarh, District Rajiiandgaon, in Claim Case No18/1999 awardmg contpensation to fhe claimants to the extent ofRs.5,14,819/- wifh iaterest @ 9% per nnniim. 2. Brief facts of the case as per the vcrsion of the claiinaat are fhat on 17.05.1999 at about 7.15 a.ni. respondcnt no.4 was driving the vetiicle beariug Regn. No. M.K.L. 9856 in which Dhannalal Ranglani (deceased) was teaveliag. It is aUeged fhat due to rash and negl^ent driving of fhe vehicle by its driver, the veliicle bas turaed turtlfi near viUage Rangkathera, as a result ofwhich, Dhannalal Ran^ani has died. The deceased was aged above 50 ycars. Before the accidcnt, he was doing contract works as also aycicultwal works and was eamiag Rs.800)/- pcr monfh. The wldow APPBLLANT National Insurancc Coinpany Lniuted RESPOiroBMTS Smt Sarla and ofhers i w '•& i-.,-..(i('J vew1^ ^ElSsSS!''' and sons of fhe deceascd being dependents filed clajin petition claiming to the tune of Rs.30,80,000/- on diflferent heads. 3. The learaed claims Tribimal held ftiat fhe decc^sed has dicd ia fhe accident took place on 17.5.1999 at village Rangkafhera when the vehicle (Mini Bus) bcaring Regn.No.M.K.L.98S6, in which he was teavefe^;, lias tumed turde due to rash and negMgent driviag of its driver that is rcspondent no.4 and the clflimants are eatitled to receive a total coinpensation of Rs.5,14,819/- fiwni fhe non- appUcaats. 4. Lcaraed couuasel for the appellants has raised two contentioas. The first contention is fhat fhe driver of thc vehicle was not tiaving a valid aad effective driving Ucense on the date of accideut. The ofher coatention is fhat the amount of coiapensation awarded by fhe Tnbuaal is exccssive. 5. With regard to the question of vaUdity aad cffectwe driying Ucense of fhe driver of fhe vehicle ia question, we have perused fhe lowcr court record. The witaess produced by appcllant Insurance Coiapany was Siyaram Dhruv, a Cleik in the office of Addl. Regioaal Transport Officcr, who had stated on fhe basis ofthe record that the driving license was issued to ftie driver which was valid fioin 27.09.1983 to 26.09.1993 and fhereafter firom 03.12.1994 t% 02.12.2002. He had again stated that it was vaiid fium 03. 12.1999 to 02.12.2002. In the cross examination hc has stated that tt» renewal of fhe said licnese waa xaade with effect fi?om 09.10.1993 to 04.08.1999. He has adinltted fhat on the d&te ofaccident that te 17.05.1999 the said driyiug tfcense was a valul drroiag Ucense. This witness has no-where gtated that the driviag lieense was not a valid and cffective drivlug Uceuse on fhe date of accident or the driver of the vehicle was not aufh-orized to drive the vehicte. In absence of any material evidence, it caanot be said that the driver of the vehicle in question vraa not having valid aad efifective dmring license. Therefore, thfa contention is not sustaiiiabte. 6. We coiae to the next point tbat te ia respect of quaatuia. We have perused the incoine tax retum of llie deceased, accordiag to which, he was having a total income of Rs.65,600 (mcludmg agncultural income of Rs.Rs. l0,000/- per aiuaum). He had paid the iacome tax Rs.1120/-. Thcrefore, that amount is to be reduced froin th.e totel incoine of the deceased aad as such the annual iacoiae coiaes to Rs.64,480/-. Accoidnig to the speci&cation laid down by Hoa'ble the Supreiae Court ia Sarla Verma's ease, if the number ofdependent femily members is 2 to 3, oiie-third (1/3) of the aruount of auaual iacoine is to be deducted towards personal aad liviag expenses and fherefore, after deducting l/3rd that is Rs.21,493/-, fhe anniial loss of dependency comcs to Rs.42,987/-. Considering fhat the dece^ed was in the age group of 51 to 55 years, muUiptier 11 would be applicable aud aflter appfyii^ fhe luiiltiplier of 11 to fhc inultiplicaad, the total loss of depeadency comcs to Rs.4,72,857/-. After adding the considciabte amouats under ofher heads that is Rs. 10,000/- for loss ofconsortnua to fhe wife and Rs.5000/- each to fhe sons fhat ia total •% / Rs.10,000/- for loss oflowe and afiectfon and Rs.5000/- for loss of estate aad furfher Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses, fhe total ofwhich comes to Rs.30,000/-. After adding this amount to the total loss ofdependency that M Rs.4,72,857/- it coines to Rs.5,02,857/-. Therefore, fhe claimauts are entitted to total compensation of Rs.5,02,857/-. We further direct that the said amoiuit shatt cany iaterest @ 6% per annnm from the date of filing of the claiin petition tiU its payment. The impugned award te inodified to the above extent. 7. In fhe result fhe appeal is aUowed in part. No oider as to Sd/- T-M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge gao