IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (C)No.- •7^5/2^o<& Ic APPELLANT THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED., D.O.V.I. EVEREST HOUSE 2ND FLOOR, 46-C, CHOURANGI ROAD KOLKATTA - 700071, THROUGH DIVISIONAL OFFICE MADINA BUILDING KUTCHERY CHOWK RAIPUR, DISTRICT - RAIPUR (C.G.) POLICY N0.- 2007-1341 Vrs. ^ \^, RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS: - by^^f^ 3. |y^su ^ ^ L SMT. CHANDRAKALA W/0 LATE ^ SUKHURAM TARAK, AGE 22 YRS. HEMNATH S/0 LATE LIKHAN TARAK, AGE 60 YRS., MANIRAM S/0 HEMNATH TARAK, AGE 18 YRS, ALL RESIDENT - VILLAGE KATHIYA, POST KATHIYA NO.-2, THANA - GOBARA, NAYAPARA, DISTRICT - RAIPUR (C.G.), RESPONDENTS/NON-APPLICANTS :- 4. RAMESHWAR YADAV S/0 RAMDAYAL YADAV, AGE 24 YRS., RESIDENT - VILLAGE AKHARA JALALPUR, THANA -SAREYYA, DISTRICT - MUJAFFARPUR BIHAR, OCCUPATION- TRUCK DRIVER - N0.- W.B. 03 A/9515 5. M/s. INDIAN PETRO CHEM TRANSPORT, 56/2 HAJARA ROAD, THIRD STORY, KOLKATTA PASHCHIM BANGAL 700019 OWNER OF VEHICLE NO.-W.B.03A/9515 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 QF MQTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 hM ^ • lli.St' !' : U::-H.. •HtQN^COIJRT^F^HHltl-IS^R^AisBILftiPiPt^H ::":'il'.:'-'^'":l^^:-?^'^ N©N98t..EIVIR.I.iVt.QUDDUSi^ HQN'Bf-EM^.N^^l.KJSHOREAOA^VAl-.JJ. iVI.A.fClNO;72aOF 20081 APPELLftNT T'he Onenta! jrtsuran<^ Company i-jmited. ^Versus;' .1.-' '' RESPONE5ENTS : Smt.Charidrakataanyothars £ ;:r::'':Er^^'.'^;[l':Shn'Sud ^..J.-,^:"y^:'^:;^'7;'-.l':l.'-;^ ShriClR.8afto,CQunselfQrWere|ponde^ ^2...-:.-';-^C;:i':;1,.';.-.. ^^."••r'.'/'.' •••' :1.' -.-" '' .':^'" ;.":';'1.: '"': "•''-.'•:^- ^••'....^ ^'''- ' ';;'l'ily;^^''';:\:'.-.l':\';^:;':...'.,.':l.'.. ^;..'^'1..'-' -/.';i: ^1-!. -r:OS^^^^R R^^^^^^^^^^^^^ •(Passed^on,1^daybf.J^ember|201^^^^^^^^^^ ;ffer:1.N.Quddusl^--.>.^;'': .'^ :l^e.;;appeJ1ant-lnsurancel;;^m|%ny'^as:-preferred^^^^^ appealagalnsttheawarddated 04-03^008 (^ssed^^^^^^l CaseNo. 57^007 by©NefMotorAccJdente}ate IVIahasamund (for short the Tribunal*) aliowing the claim applicatlon ofthe ctairaants. • 2; The appeilant-insuranee Company had assaifed Ifte impugned ^ard ^ainly on the Qrouhd^^o^ regard permission under Section "170 of the Motor Vehides ^ct, 1988hasbeengrantedtotheappellarit. , €^ '»n;: •B^^: ^.'i. ^^ l|.!.f-1':..'^ { u !.1';1 pl: U. !1 iii ^... 3.Factsoftheca^jnbriefarethaton10-04-20Q7M 7.30 p.n'i. inthe eveningthedeceasedSykhramwascomingto Viilage Rarsadih from^^ registratEon No. GG 04?C.P. 9246 alongwithihis friend.^^^^ V^ they reached near Tumgaon Bus stand, ttie truck^^b registratijOnNo.WB03A/9515,drlvenbyresponclehtNG.1ina rash and negiigent manner, dashed the mot'orcycle oy the deceasedasaresutt.thedeceasedsustaihecj^anousfnjurieson -i.:l..; his body. He was taken to ^Sovemment Hospital, Tumgaon from I-..;-..,.. / , . ..' .^1- ,:.....-....—.• where he was referred IQ Meclteal College^H wterehedjedon 12.4.2007 whileundeigojrigtreatmenf.^^R of the jnddent was iodged^ln the pQiice^ S^atton T v^ereupon ofTence uncter Section 27®,337 &i304A otth was registered againstthe driver ofthe vehlcj^. The clsjmants havectaimed GornpensatiQnof Rs. 19,20,000^- undervarjoys heads onthe groundthattheyweredependentlonttiedeceased andduetohjsdeaththeyhavesufferedlossofincome. 4, The learned Tnbunai, OR a close^^^ adduced,materja^avaHaye^nrecqrdandsybmSssions^ thepartles,awardedasumpfRs.5,80,OOO^atongwithlnteFest 6% perannum^mthedateofthe;petJtlQn.^^^^^T also djrected that In c^se of defayit in maki|ig paym^ amoynt awarded withln time, the-ci^imants sh^tJ be ©Rtltledfor ,1nterest:@.1'2%lp.a..;;^:;'.,.:<.^ 5; L^arned counsei fbF^^^^^^^ as^ued that N the time Qfacciyent-dnver^^^^^ i: k :y! •"?• possessing thevaiid aod effective drfving licence and fhus, th® vehicle was piied m insurance policy. He further submjtted that in abs^^^ documentary proof on reGOi^ the tribunal has committed a mistake in amvjog at a;concluslon that the^ d earning Rs.200/- per clay. He ftjrther submits jthat in absence of any provision regarciini penai interest in the IVIotor Vehlcles Act, 1988, the Tribunal has committed a mlstake in djrecting,that if theamQuntawardedisnotpajdwjthJntjme,Jnterest@12%shalI ,bepayab{e.,l;:, ; r".;', ,:'1'' ' •;'..!!; .:':, •. ;1-.' ':.::' "11;'[ .,. 6. We haye heard leamed counse! for the parties and perused the reoords of th®tnbunal as also the findings Qiyeri In the impughed award. 7. SofarasthequestionofquantumJsconGemed,oncareftjl examination oTthe Smpugned award, v^findtliat in a any definite evidence regarding ernployment <?T the deceased, the Tribunal has committed a mjstake in assessing the monthly incomeof the deceased at Rs.6000/- i.e. @ R[s.200/- per day. Ih such a situation.the Tribunal should have assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of notiona! income presoribed in the Second Scheduie under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 i.e. Rs.36,000/- p.a. Therefore, we assess the monthjy incQme of ths deceased as Rs.3,000/- i.e. Rs.36,000/- p.a. and afterdeducting 1 /3rd towards hts iiving and persQnal expenditure, thetotal!ossofJncomewouJdcometoRs.24,000/-p.a. ^ I •!l;- ^:' Further, the multlplier applied by the Tnbunaj in the present case is also not proper in view ofthe jydgment ofthe Mon'ble Apex Court In the matter pf Sarfe? Verma (Smt) and c^ers ^s- D^h! Tn^port Cc^poraQqn and ano^^^^ reported in ^200S^ 6 SCC f2fas according to|thjsjudgmentthe proper multlpljer applicable in the present case would be 17 as the age of the deceased at the time of incident was 30 years. Thus to cateutate the total Idss of dependency 1f we apply the mujtiplier of 17, the same wouid^^^^^^^^^TO (24000x17). 1 . Besides this, the amount awarded by the tribunai under other admissibJe heads are ajso not in accordance With the amoyht mentioned in ^the Seconci ScheduSe provided under Section 163A of the Act. Therefore, we award an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the wjdow bf the deceased Ifcowards ioss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- each to other two cfaimants towards loss of love and affectlpn. They are aiso awanjed Rs.5,000/- fbr IQSS of estate and Rs.5,OOP/- for funerai expenses. In view of the above, we are of view that the ciaimants are entitied for the compensatlon of Rs.4,38,000/f- ?n all aiong with Interest ^ 6% p.a. from the d@te offjSing of applteatiQn tIJI the payment is made actuaily. 8. -Fyrther, we feei that penal interest imposed by the tribynat @ 12% is not proper and the same deserves tolbe set aside in view ofthe !aw Jaid down bythe Hon'ble Supreme Cou matter of National insyrancer^mpany Ud. Vs.^ K i:;K :c^: ! ' • !i .i' ii Kvr BahadurandNhersreportedin (2004) 2SGC37^wher6jnt)ie Hontile Supreme Court has hel^^^^ .t1•i'. '•..•.,':. '.....;. 11-.:.; ,.•. . .. 1 ..- retrospective erthancement of jnterest for^defaujt^^^^^ ^f'l.:'::--:;ll;; -^ thecompensationtogetherwjthinterestpayayiethereonvjrtuaijy amounts to jrnposition of penalty whieh envisagedand prescrjbed. Is not ^tatutonjy 9. In the result, theappeal is'partly alto^ award is modifjed to the extentthat npwthe ©{ajmants^^ entjtled for Rs.4,38,OOOA as comperisati Rs.5,80,OQO/-. They shall also be entitJed for jnteresf @ 0% p.a. on the awarded amountfrom the date offling pfapplicatjon t^ actuai payment Is made. Kowever, xijrectjo of the Tribynai regarciing payment ofpenal interest @ 12%Tn case the amount of compensation is not paid within the stipulatec} perio hereby set aside. Rest 6 e cbnditions imposed bytte Tribunai shaKremainintact; 10. The appeal is allowed jn part to the e)Aent indj^ above.No order as to cbst. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge U-.ti;'