_2/^ if':'''^ B';';SI:'. '.^" .':1'. '^y'"^:i.s^ ^;'^^>i.;-;">^^^\ -BiiSISIWKSilBSaBi ^SSS-SSSiSSSS^'SSSiiiSSSS^ WiWBSSS'SSW^WSeSHS&i \'iaS9SSSSsS:!!WW:WS MS SW iS8^KKSBSBBBJS%881 iigfiKtiBSBiiSiiSil yi9lSiKS9USSS!iSSK \:^iiijii!iiy^SiSSSSSKsKi lli88111iBJiB8KiS18®l IIS^KBBiBiBlllBlUl Sfc^&*ffitS+»iihi^^S^^4^tt^ad(—!thi/:tn'u<^t- f^'^<i ^•.f+-^^'- ^Sisss^^^BssMI^ ^" .^'•' !<, '.fv», S£ ^1-, 1> ffs 1-3L ll—t-... tO' oo^ w: <> • pSUffi^^;^!^? i^^^^%^^^^^S^^^%^?®>^^ 1 HI6H COURTOF GHHATn.SSAftH AT BILASPUR DIViaONBENCH: HON'Bt.EWii. I.M:QUt)t)USI& HON'BLE MR NAWAL ia:SH<»rj46ARWAt.. JJ M.A fc1No.a)8/2008 ApDellant Respondents Vs Oivjstonal Manager, The New Indw Assurance Co. Ltd. Sebrel Mare A others Present: Mr.RajAwasthi.Advooatefortheappellant. Mr. P.R. Patankeu', Advocate for the respondents. ORD (Qraiy -»••• M. (ly1'Oecwnbw. 201(9 I.M Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. The appellant-Iosurance Company hos filed this appeal diatlenging the g cbted 11.2,2007 passedbythelearned 8 Additional Motor AccidentClaims Tribunal, (FTC), Dyrg (for ^ort ^e TribunaO in Ctaim Cdse No.37/07 •thereby awarding a compensation pf Rs.3,30,500/-nlong with intwest @ 6% p.a. to the ctaimqnts^ The tribunal has ql»directed that jn case of ctef^ in making payment of amount awarded within time, the cldjmants diall be entitled for interest @ 9% p.a. 3. Permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19S8 (for short Ihe Act, 1988')tocontesttheclaifflpnallavail<tbledefences wasgranted to the appetlant-insunmce company. • 4. Facts of.the case, in brief,are thatlheclaimants have filed aclaj^^ under Section 166 of-the^ct, 1988claiming compensatjon ofRs.10,50,000/- for the death of deceased Oscar Murre in the motor accident which took pbce on 18.6.2006 (xtabout 18.45 hrs when the deceased »»asdadied by the offending vehicle bearing registratjon numberWB37-A-3499 on account of I- '. ' • ;^ • . ' ' 1 ' • ! ' ' • [ ^rttshdnd. negligent drjying of the sajd vehicle by jts driver. TTie cldjmanfs -'have claimed compensntion on ttie ground that due to dea'th of the deceasecl, faey have suffered t6SSTof inc(»me. &i K 5. The Tribunal after hetU'ing the parties in the matter and consjdertng the materjal avaitable pn recoi^ possed Ihe jmpugned (nmrd granting compensation of Rs.3,3p.5QO/- alonft wjth interest @ 6% pA The Tribunal had further directed -that in case the amount.gwarded is not deposi'tecl within 1+iestipulated period, the clgimants diall be entitled forHTherest© 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the payment is made. 6. We have heard leamed counsel for the partjes and perused the necords of the tribunal asalso the findings given in the impugnedaward. 7. The appelkmt-Insunmce Company has assftiled 1+ie jmpygned award tnainly on 'the question of quantum. 8. It is an admitt-ed foct -thqt the deceased was 68 years old and was a pensioner. After his death, hjs widow wos geltjng pension, who also died after one year of the death of the decegsed. Other cloijmants qre mqjor sons of the deceaad ond there is np evidence on record to show that they were dependent on the deceased. The widow of the deceased would have spent some inoney out of the estorte of her late husband. 9. The Tribunal to calcuktte the toss of income has deducted l/3"i from the monthly pension of -the deceased ahd after applying multipfier of 5, calculated ttie total loss of income ois Rs.3,20,000/-. Hpwever, tiie Tribunal while catculating the loss of income failed to deduct Rs.4,000/- from the monthly income of thedeceased, which his widow was gett-ing after his death. ^Therefore, after deducting 1/3 from the mon'thly income of the deceassd if we deduct a further sum Qf Rs.4,000/-, the foss of mon+hly income would come to Rs.1334/- (8000xl/3"l-4000) oncl thus, the onnual loss of mcome would come to Rs.16,008/- (1334x12). Further, considering the age of the deceasedat the timeof accident i.e. 68 years, if we opply the myltiplier of 5, as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in -tiie matter of SaHa Vsrma (&nt.) and artwrs -vs- Delhi Tiwi^iort Corpwwtiwi and wiortw reported in (?0(89 6 SCC 121.^ne total loss of deperidency would •s4. conie to fts.80,040/- (160C®x5). After adding compensatjpn in respect of / other heads i.e. loss of consort-ium, loss of love A affection, funeral ^;;,\" 1'':" ~-":~G:.-^':"., /;. \, . , ,^ .^»^:. ^expenses etc., we ares^of •tfae .opinion that a hjmp-sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is ^ Roshan-/ Ikible 10 bedwarded as compensation to tiie cteimants. Thu the compensntion awarded by the Tribunal is too e^cessive. lOL Further, we feel 1+iat pemil in'tenist jmpo«d by the tribungl © 9% is not proper in view of 1+ie hwlaid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court' in.the matter of Natipnal Inwranw <^pohy>L^. Vs. K^^ othere reportedin (2004) 2 SCC 370 wherein -the Hon'ble Sypreme Court- has held thfft direction in the cniwd for^retrpspectiye jn'ihanitaemeBt. pf interest for defoult in payment of the compensation togelher with interest poyable thereon vir'tually amounts to imposition of penalty which is not StatutOrily envisaged ond prescribed. 11. In the reaiit, the appeal is partly gllowed, the impugned cnmrd is mpdify to the extent that now 1+ie cldimants shall be entitled for a lump-ajm compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in place pf Rs.3,32,TOO/-. They shall also be entitled for interest @ 6% p.a. on •the awarded amount from the date of flingof applicatjon till actual payment is made. However, direction of the Tribunal regardingpaymentofpenal interest @9% in case.ttiedmountof compensation is not paid within the stjputated peripd, is hereby set aside. 12. The appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No order asto cost. 13 Cert-ified copy as per rules. /'^^^^ Sd/- Sd/- LM-Quddusi Judge ?<.K. ^gra Jud&e iwal