RT : ; si S / s y?s ;[^!^^p 1 © o int,;[ ^vssion iyanci IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC, APPEALJC] N0. ^' ^-/2011 MISa APPEAL UNDER SECTION F73 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 APPELLANT INSURER RESPONDENTS '/CLAIMANTS .s^". ^/^".,-A\ j^ xil" .^ -v^-/'.,.; -^ vs&-/ ^yArv ^'.^.,-.-•'''"° <:v:'^' <y" DRIVER OWNER 'Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through : its Legal Officer, 301, 302 Corporate House 169 RNT Market, Opposite Jhabua Tower, Indore (M.P.) VERSUS Pahad Singh Goutam aged about 52 years, S/o Late Bishal Singh Goutam, 2^ Smt. Shivbati Goutam, aged about 50 years W/o Pahad Singh Goutam, Both R/o C.C.I. Colony, Mandhar Colory (Tekari), Police Station - Dharsinwa, District - Xaipur (C.G.) 3^ Manharan Nirmalkar, aged about 45 years, S/o Pardeshi Nirmalkar, R/o Shivpuri Jamul, Police Station - Jamul, District - Durg (C.G.) 4^ Kanhaiya Singh, S/o R.D. Singh, ^' R/o H.I.G. 2355, M.P.H.B. Industrial Area, Bhilai, District - Durg fC.G.) APPEAL VALUED AT RS. 6,16.800/- COURT FEE Rs. 15/- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble I. M. QUDDUSI & Hoa'ble MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVA8TAVA, JJ APPELLANT: RESPONDENTS: M.A(C|.No. 212/2011 ReUance Generatl Insurance Coiapaay Ltd. Vs. Pahad Siagh Gautain & others •< MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OP THE MOTOR VEHICLE8ACT, 1988 Appearance: Mr. Saurabh Sbanaa, counsel for fhe appeUaut. Mr. Devershi Thakur, counsel for respondents 1 & 2. Mr. Anurag Jha, counsel for respondents 3 & 4. ORAL ORDER (03.0S.2011) PCT !,M. QUDDUSI, J, <.. Heard. 2. This appeal has been filed by ffae Insuraace Coaipaiiy agaiast fhe impugned award dated 26.10.2010 passed by fhe Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G) ia Claun Case No. 16/ 2009 on the question of quantuia. 3. The appeUajat had got permission u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to chaUenge fhe quaiituin iu fhis appeal. 4. Brief facts of fhe case as per the version of the clamiants are fhat on 13.6,2009 deceased Sher Siagh Gautam was goiag on his motorcycle bearmg Regn.No.C.G.04-ZE/2281. On the way at about 3.30 p.m, a Tata Magic Vehicle bearing Regn.No.C.G.07-C/9472 owned by Tata Motor Depot, Dharsiwa, which was beiag driven by respoadent no.3 in a rash and negl^ent inaaner dashed the inotorcycle, as a result ofwhich, Sher Singh sustained serious injuries on his head aad ofher parts of fhe body. He was brought to fhe Medical CoUege Hospital, Raipur where he died during sss^; ^' j^y %3^3^'-" course of treatment At the time of accident, fhe deceased was aged about 29 years, he was working as Electriciaa ia Monet Factoiy and was earaing Rs.5000/- per inonth. The claunants beiag depeadents/legal representatives have ffled claim petidon for the award of coinpensation to fhe tiuie of Rs. 12,00,000/- on various heads. 5. The leamed Claims Tribunal has held that the offendiag vehicle was iavolved in the accident in which the deceased died; there was no contnbutory negligence on the part of deceased aad respondent uo.S^was having vaUd and effective driving Ucence. The Tribunal has awarded a total coiupensation of Rs.6,16,800/- with interest @ 6% per amiuin. 6. The deceased was a bachelor, his monfhly iacome has been assessed by fhe Tribunal as Rs.4200/- but it has coiamitted wrong ia deducting l/3rd towards personal aad Uving expenses of the deceased beiag bachelor. In Seirla Verma (Smt.f -vs- Oelht Transport Corporattoit and miother reported in. (2009) 6SCC 121, Hon'ble the Supreme Court held in para 31 fhat wliere the deceased was a bachelor aad ftie claunants are parents, nonnatly, 50% is deducted as personal aad living expenses because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend inore on himsetf. Therefore, on deducting 50%, loss ofdependency coines to Rs.2100/- per luonfb aad Rs.25,200/- per aunuin. The Tribunal has adopted inuItipUer 12 which is slightly on higher side. It is weU setUed fhat the parent beiag claiiaaats, the age of the parents is to be considered. Here in fhe iastant case, the ages of fhe parents were 52 aad 50 years, fheir average age coines to 51 years aud they faU under the age group of 51 to 55 years. Therefore, according to fhe Scvrla Verma's Case (supra), multiplier 11 would be appUcable. On applyiag BiultipUer 11 to the annual loss of dependency, fhe total loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,77,200/- (25200 x 11). Besides this the parents are entifled to get Rs. 10,000/ - each (total Rs. 20,000) for loss of love and afFection as they have lost youag bachelor son. They are also entitled to get Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for fiineral ^ ''%],. (.-.'- 7. Rao expenses, which iu all comes to Rs.35,000/- over fhe other beads. Ater addiug this amount towards total loss of dependency, the total coinpensation coxnes to Rs.3,12,200 (Rs.2,77,200 + 35,000). The Tribunal has awaided a totat coinpensation ofRs.6,16,800/- which is excessive, fherefore, it is Uable to be aud is hereby reduced to Rs.3,12,200/- which the claimaats are entitled to receive froin the appeUant. Besides this, the said amount shall also cany iuterest @ 6% per annum tbrough out froin fhe date of the filing ofthe claim petition till the payuient is inade. In fhe result, appeal is allowed ia part. The impugned award dated 26.10.2010 is niodified to fhe above extent. No order as to costs. \^-' ——— \ ._ Sd/- ^ ^^. > Mani"dra Mohan Shrivastava ^y Judge [<^^ --'' °- ^y-'