IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH^TBILASPUR MISC. APPEAL fCI N0^ 9^ Y2011 MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 sytssfus'a APPELLANT INSURER ^x^.:// '' .^re--"' ../ ^/s^^ tw^/<^ y^ ..-' ^ ^y-y RESPONDENTS DRIVER '^S S^S t. ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Company Limited, Registered office: ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra- Kurla, Complex, Mumbai, 4000 51, through its Legal Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, 3"-d Floor, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS Smt. Sunita @ Basanti, W/o Kuleshwar Pasad, aged about 46 years, OWNER 2. Kuleshwar Prasad S/o Ramadhar Sharma, aged about 52 years, Both are R/o P.W.D.-24, Kotwali Police Line Sector - 6, Bhilai, P.S. Bhilainagar, Tahsil 85 District - Durg (C.G.) 3.. Shivshankar Prasad S/o Bhagwan Das, Aged about 28 years, R/o D.S. Construction Ltd. Chherkhedi, P.S. - Mandir Hasaud, District - Raipur (C.G.) 4. D.S. Construction Limited, Upper Hoor of State Bank of Indore Telibandtia, Raipur (C.G.) APPEAL VALUED AT RS. 3.29,500/- " COURT FEE Rs. 15/- ^. TTISuARh^AT Bli.ASPUR . I.PAQUDDUSI 8, HON'BLE MR. PRASHANT KUMAR MiSHRA. JJ. M-A.rcl N0.96 OF 2011 ICICI Lombard General insurance ComDanv Limited. Versus RESPONDENTS Smt. Sunita & another Present : Shri Saurabh Sharma, Adv. forthe appeilant. /1stFebruaru. 2011) VI. neard on admission. 2. The appellant-lnsurance Company has preferred this appeal against the award dated 12.10.2010 passed in Claim Case No.45/2009 bv the learned 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Durg (CG) (for short 'the Tribunai') allowing the claim application of the claimants and fastening liabiiity on the appellant-lnsurance Company to pay the compensation to the parents of the deceased, who was a bachelor aged about 22 years and was employed in the etectrical shop ot'AVV-3 Kuldeep. 3. Tne ciaimants have filed a ciaim petition before the Tn'bunal under Section 166 S the Motor VehicJes Act, 1988 (for short :the Act") seeking compensation of Rs.59,15.000/- for the death of deceased Ankush Sharma, 'Mio died jn a motor accident which took place on 30.12.2008 when the moiorcycle ofthe deceased, on which he was going towards Raipur Engineer Cotlege, was dashed by the offending vehicle bearing registration number CG04-J-2302 near Kali Tempie, Ralpur. The compensation has been claimed on the ground that due to his untimeiy death, they have suffered toss of income. ' 4. The learned Tribunal, after considering the issues framed by it, awarded a compensation of Rs.3,29.500/- io the claimants aiong with interest @ 7% per annum from the date ofthe application. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-lnsurance Company has assailed the impugned award mainly on the question of quantum on the ground that since the deceased was a bachelor, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% from the inoome of the deceased towards his personal expenditure, but it has deducted 1/3'", which is not proper. 6. VVe have heard teamed counsel for the appellant and perused the records ofthe in the 8. Though the learned counsel for the appellant-lnsurance Company is right jn raising the contention that in a case where the deceased is a bachelor, 50% should have been deducted for personai expenses, but side-by-side the multipiier is applicable according to the age ofthe parents. fn the case in hand, the Tribunai has applied the multiplier of 10, whereas according to the age ofthe parents ofthe deceased, which was 46 & 52 years and average ofwhich would come to 49 years, ihe muitiplier of 13 is applicable, as per decision of the Hon'bie Supreme Court in the matter of Saila v'erma (Smt) and others -vs- Accordingiy, if we deduct 50% from the annual income of the deceased i.e. Rs.48,000/-, as assessed by the Tribunai, and appiy the muitiplier of 13, the toiai loss ofdependencywould come to Rs.3,12,000/- {'48000/2x13). Further, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under various admissible heads are not proper. Since the deceased was a bachelor of 22 years age, naturally the parents of the deceased wouid have more Jove and affections to him in comparison to the parents ofa married or bachelor son ofthe age of40 years or more and therefore, keeping in view the same scale to grant compensation underthe head ofloss ofiove & affecSion, we are ofthe opinion that Rs.10,000-/ each wouid be proper. Further, the claimants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funerai expenses. Thus, in our opinion, the total amount of compensation for which t'ne claimants are entitled for is Rs.3,47,000/- (Rs.3,12,000 + 35,000), whereas the Tribunai has awarded only Rs.3,29,500/-. However, since there is no cross-appeal, we are ofthe opinion that though the formuta adopted bythe Tribunal to assess the loss OT dependency and compensation is not proper but it can not be said that the amount awarded bythe Tribunai as compensation is excessive. On the basis of above discussion, the instant appeal has no force, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge