- g . .... BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH BILASPUR @mm wwxsiix M.A‘(c> No. €90 £2997» j my; ‘ ‘ v hzjzik 5 3??“ " ’ 1 VljiLWg r ' ....: .3. . . M x M Ms WWmmmmwwww»mmwww\mmw h: Tatibandh, ‘ Raipur, P.S. Aamanaka, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Presently resided at Neeigiri Krishi Farm, Paahra (Nandini) P.S. Nandini, District Durg (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 WW MW HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR . APPEALS U S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, APPEARANCE: Mr. Ajay Mishra, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Jitendra Gupta, counsel for respondent No. 1. ORDER (ORAL) (04.01.2011) M. QUDDUSI, J, 1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the award dated 24.08.2007 passed by X1 Addl. Wéddent Claims Tribunal (F.'I‘.C), Durg (0G) in Claim Case No. 164j2006 awarding Rs‘3,85,000/- with penal interest at 90A) per 8111mm. 2. The only question raised in this appeal is with regard to quantum of the award and there is permission u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to challenge the award. 3. Brief facts of the case as per the version of the claimant are that deceased Santosh was employed by respondent no.2. As a daily routine, on 05.08.2006 Santosh had gone to work under respondent no.2. He was travelling in Tractor & Trolly bearing Regn.No. C.G.O4/Z.G/6482 85 6483 owned by, MISC 1988 Per L DB: HON’BLE LM. QUDDUSI & PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ, M. AgCi No. 190 OF 2008 I APPELLANT The On'ental Insurance Company t Limited Vs. DEESPGNDENTS -_~.~._mmy_. l ( Dheluram Vanna and others respondent no.2 to reach and work at Nih'giri Agricultural Farm, Nandini belonging to responderit 110.2. The said Tractor 8r, Trolly was being dn‘ven by respondent no. 1 in rash and negligent manner. When the said Tractor reached near village Godhjkhar, the speed of the Tractor became uncontrolled and it turned turtle, as a result of which Santosh sustained serious injun‘es. He was admitted in Govt. Hospital where he died during the course of treatment. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 24 yeais and was eaming Rs.ISO/- per day by doing labour works. The claimants being parents and legal representatives of the deceased filed an applicau‘on before the Tribunal u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensaiion to the tune of Rs.24,10,000/ - on various heads. The Tribunal has asse3sed the monthly income as Rs.3000/ n per month and the annual income as Rs.36,000/-. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3“ towards personal and living expenses, but since the deceased was bachelor, one-half (1/2) should have been the standard deduction and thus the total annual income should have been assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.18,000/- instead of Rs.24,000/—. The Tribunal has applied multiplier 15 which seems to be on higher side. The parents being claimants, the age of the parents has to be considered. The age of the appellants on i the date of aceident was 4O and 45 years and the average age is 42 V2 years. Therefore, if we treat the average age of both the claimants as 42 V2 years, aceording to the multiplier scale given in Sarla Verma (Smt.) ~vs~ Delhi Transport Corporation and another (Para 40) reported in (2009), SCC 121, multiplier 14‘ should have been made applicable. Thus the total loss of d€pendency comes to Rs.2,52,000/~ Besides this, Rs. for loss (Rs. 18,000 x 14). this, we grant 10,000] - of estate, Rs. 10,000/~ each for loss of love and aifection] loss of consortium (total Rs.20,000/— to both the claimants), and Rs. 5000/- for funeral expenses which in d1 comes to Rs.35,000/— under the other heads. If we add Rs.35,000/- to the total loss of dependency that is Rs.2,52,000] - the total compensation comes to Rs.2,87,000/- which the Claimants are entitled to receive from the appellant. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal that is Rs.3,85,000/- is reduced to Rs.2,87,000/-. 5. Further, the Tribunal has awarded penal interest @ 9% per annum after the stipulated period which also seems to be unsustainable. Therefore, we direct that this award shall carry interest @ 6% per annum through out 12mm the date of the filing of the claim application till the payment is made. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award dated 24.08.2007 is modified to the above extent. The rest of the conditions mentioned in the award of the Tn‘bunal shall remain in tact. Sd/— Sdl— Prashant kumar Mishra Dr. LM. Quddusi Judge Judge Rao