sstse^sHsifs- "Elli''Btefe|^^ CHHATTISGARH AT / ^ .-y ^y ^-'" ?PUJ ^ Bivision Beneh 3 > Umted ladia Insm'ance Comoanv Limited Throueh Branch MaQaser. Uaited India Insurance Company, Branch Office, Mendekar Complex, Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) 495001. u ^—-^1.Khiroo,aged about 66 yrs., son ofLate Jagta Madhukar, Caste Sataami, q__;2. Mst. Sahodara Bai, aged about 31 years, wife ofLate Jhamlal Madhukar, V-3. Vijay Kumar, aged about 6 years, ^/ minor guardiaa mother Mst. Sahodara Bai, T^ ^-4. Smt. Ramkali Bai, aged about 65 years, wife ofKhiroo Satnami, ^—^.K-u. Bhagwati Bai, aged 12 years, ^ daughter of Late Jhamlal, minor through mother Sahodara Bai, wife of Late Jhamlal, >, Vikram, aged about 2 years, son of Late s<' Jhamlal, minor guardian mother Sahodara Bai, wife of Late Jhamlal, 'tU, Resident of Village Baghmar, P.S. Mungeli, Distriet Bilaspur(Chhattisgarh), 7. Atulkant Tyagi, aged about 39 years, son of Shri Maagsingh Tyagi, resident of ViUage Through Shri V.P. Mishra, Contd..2.. UlWTSR'awt^'' -: 2 : - 1013/3 , Mata Road, Rajeev Nagar, Gurgaon (HaryaBa), Owner of Maruti Vcmno.H.R.26K4852, §. Rajesh Kumar Rajput, aged about 31 years, sou of Gyaachaad, Caste Raj'put, resideat ofViUage Bhamdaka, P.S. and Tahsil Tijara, District Alwar, Driver, ^•9. Dilip, aged about 21 years, SOB ofLate Jhamlal, resident of Village Baghmar, P.S. Mungeli, Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). ^ NON-APPLICANTS N0.1,2 and 4 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 198^ —ea-..ria^S=_.£^&£^_^^^^.-^ HIGH COURT OP <»IHATn8GARH.BILASPXJR DB: HON'BLB IM. QUDDU8I & HOH'BLE PRA8HANT KUMAR MI8HRA, JJ, M^A. Mp. 455 OF2005 Vs. Khiroo and others MISC. APPBAL U/SJ^'3 OF THB MOTORVBHICLBSACT, 1988 APPEARANCE: Mr. PatikajAgrawal, counsel for the appeUant. Mr.R. N. Jha, counsel for the respoiidents. 1 to 6. S(»B*Bffi!^»' Per I.M. QUDDUSI. J, ORDEiR IQStAU (02.02.2011) 1. TIiis appcal has been fited by tfae Insiuance Coiapaay against fhe award dated 15.03.2005 passed by M AddL Motor Accident Clauas Tribuaal (F.T.C), Mungeli, District Bilaspiu- (C.G) ia CIaiin Case No.2/2004 on the question ofquantum as the appeUaat has got permission under section 170 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Brieffacts ofthe case as per the veision ofthe claimaats are ttiat deceased Jhamlal was a Mason by profession and had gone to Haiyaaa for livelihood where on 27.07.2003 atabout 10 a.in., when fhe deceased was going on foot on proper side, one Maruti Van beadag Rega. No. H.R. 26 K/4852 which was beiag driven by respondent no.8 in a rash aad negl^ent inauaer dashed the deceased froin back side near Asiana Garden S.T.D. He was brought to Bhiwadi Hospital ^PPBLLANT The United India Insiu-aace Compa&y Ltd. ia critical condition aad after prunary treatment, he was admitted in Safilarjung Hospital, New DeUii, where during the course oftreatment, he died. At ttie ttine ofaccideut, fhe deceased was aged about 35 years. He was workiag as Head Mason and undertakes building works on contract basis. Besides fhis, Hc was also haviag sortte incoaae by ^ricultural works which he used to do ia leisure times when fhere was no buUding works aad as such he was eaming Rs. 10,000 to 12,000/- per anauxa. The claiinants being dependents/kgal i^preseutatives of the dcceased filed an appUcation u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, claitniag coinpensation to fhe tune of Rs.20,00,000/- on various heads. 3. The learaed Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of evidcnce led, material placed and submissions inade by the parties, has partty atlowed fhe claiia appMcation of respotidente 1 to 6 and held fhat on 27.7.2003 the ofEendmg Marutt Vau bearing Regn.No. H.R. 26-K/4852 which was being driveu by respondent no.8 iu a rash and negligent maaner daahcd the dece^aed as a result ofwhich he died; the dnver was having valid and effective driving Uceuse aad the respondents 7 & 8 have not breached the poUcy conditions. 4. Admittedty, the dcceased was aged about 35 yeara aDd was Mason by profession, but he was not vrorking as Mason for tfac whole year. He used to spend 4 inonfhs on ^ricultural works also. TheTribuitaltreated the income offhedeceased as Rs.150/- per day during 8 inonths and Rs.100/- pcr day for the reiaainiag 4 inoafhs. lu fhe year 2003, fhe daily iacome ofmasonwas not inore fhan Rs.100/- and itcaanot be presumed that he would work for 30 days in each inonth. Furfher with regard to the agricultural work, he would havc got soiae iucoiue but it caiiaot be tenned as a total loss as the incoine fi?oin agricultural work would reiuam there but it cannot be said that a person Uke deceased, who was a Iiead naason, was continuousty worldag for ei^it monfhs in construction field, therefore, for all fhe purposea, if we assess the inconie of thc deceased for the whote year as Rs.100/- per day treating his work for 25 days only iu a calendar inonth that is Rs.2500/- per month, the incoaie for 12 nionftus would come to Rs.30,000/-. Siace there are six claimaTite being dependent fainify lueiabers in the instant case, according to the decision of fhe Supreme Cozirt ia Scufa. Verma. (Snst.) and others -ffs- Oelhi Trtmaport Co»poratton *«nd «wu»ffterrtde peira 30 reported to (2009) 6 SCC 121 where the number of depemlent famity ineinbers are 4 to 6, the standaid deductiou towaTds personal and living expenses shouM Iiave been l/4<b (one- fourfh) and thus after deducting 1/4tb, the loss of annual dependency coaies to Rs.22,500/-. Siace deceased was aged about 35 years, hc comes wifhin fhe aye group of 31 to 35 years. Therefore, according to fhe iniiltiplier scate givea in Para 40 of the Sarla Verma's case (supra), inultiplier 16 would be appUcable. Thus the total toss ofincome comes to Rs.3,60,000/- (Rs.22,500 x 16). Besides this, the claimante are also entifled to get Rs.10,000/- for loss ofconsortiuin to the wife; Rs.5000/ - each for loss of love and affection for fhe mother and four miaor children of fhe deceased (total StSlj!,,,<.i,;l.)"pa]i,»' 6. Rs.25,000/-); Rs.10,000/- &r loss ofestate aad Rs.5000/- for funeral expeuses. It was nientioned that the dead body of the dcceased was brought fioin Safflarjung Hospital, New DeUu to his native place. Therefore, the caiinans are also entifled to get Rs.6000/- &r transit chai^es wliich ia aU com.es to Rs.56,000/- uuder the other heads. Ifwe add ttds amount to the total loss of dependency, the totel coxnpensation coiues to Rs.4,16,000/- (Rs.3,60,000 + 56,000) which the claunants are entitled to receive feoin fhe appellaat. The Tribuaal has awarded Rs.3,25,000/- whicfa seeins to be excessiye. Therefore, we reduce the same to Rs.4,16,000/-. Further fhe Tribuaal has initialty granted 9% siinpte interest ia case the amotuat is paid wUhin fhe stipiilated pcrtod, but after fhe stipiilated period it has imposed peiial iaterest @ 12% per annuin which is not proper aad fherefore that part of the judgment imposing the peiial interest is set aside. We direct that this awatd shaU cany sixnple interest @ 9% per nTinnTn through-out fi'oia the date of fhe fiUng of the claiia appUcation tiU the payment is made. At tius stage, learaed counsel for the appeUant has filed fhe Xerox copy offhe order dated 04.10.2004 which shows that the claimaats had fited claiin petition befoTe the MACT Guigaon (Haryaaa) wliich was registered aa MACT N0.388/VPG/20-12-2003 aad the said claim petition was dismMsed &r waat of prosecution on 04.10.2004. There cannot be two awards for the same accideat aad theiefore wsaM csir.-?' since fhe instant award bas been passed, the elaiin petitfoa which was filed at Giugaon caanot be restDicd. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugaed award dated 15.03.2005 is xaodified to the above extent The rest ofthe conditioxis nieationed ia fhe awaid offhe Tribunal shaU remaiu in tact. Nooideras to cost(s). Sd/- f-^:Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Rao