^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.AC^O.^^ / 200^ ^T ADDellants : ^Jai Prakash Singh Chouhan, S/o Late Brij Kishore Singh, R/o Vill. Geedam, P.S. Geedam, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) Versus Non-applicant no.3 Respondents .(Claimants) N.A. No. 1 3.^ N.A. No. 2 .4. ^^1. 5 Lacbhu, S/o Chamru, 48 years Smt. Butki, W/o Lacbhu, 42 years Res. no. 1 8& 2 R/o Vill. Korlapal, Post- Ronje, P.S. Geedam, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) Babulal @ Ballu @ Billu Sethia, R/o Vill. Cheetalanka, . , Teh. & Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) Tejendra Singh, S/o Late Sardar Surendra Singh, Partner- M/.s Dr. Bhaktu Singh 8& Sons, R/o 431/1 Nagpur Road, Jabalpur (M.P.) Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company, Near Jharkar Talkies, Jagdalpur (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT N.A. No. 4 p. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DB: HON»BLBI.M. QUDDU8I SB HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR MI8HRA, JJ M.AfC^o. 546 of 2007 Vs. APPBAL UNDBR SBCTION 173 OF THB MOTOR VBHICLES ACT. 1988 APPEARANCE Mr. Praful Bharat aad Mr, Keshav Dewangaa, counsel for fhe appeUaat. Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Counsel for respondent no.5. Per I.M. QUDDUSI. J ORDBR (ORAL1 (27.04.2011) r2^\ This appeal has been filed by fhe owner agaiast fhe impugned award dated 05,02.2007 passed by fhe Additional Motor Accideut Clamis Tribunal^ Daadetwada (C.G) ia Clami Case No. 132/2005 whereby fhe Insurance Coinpaay has been exonerated froia its UabiUty and fhe saoie has been imposed upon fhe owner. Brief facts of the case as per the version of fhe clamiants are that on 17.11.2003, deceased Istami Anis was going by Jeep bearing Registration No.M,P.20-E/0965. On the way, at about 10 a.in., when fhis vehicle reached to village Jawaaga, respondent no,3 who was driviag fhe said vehicle ia a rash aad negUgent inaiiner could not control fhe vehicle and it turaed tiirtle. Due to fhe aforesaid accident, fhe deceased sustamed uyuries arid died on fhe spot At fhe tiine of APPELLANT Jai Prakash Siagh Chouhaa RBSPONDBNTS Laclihu and others ^-o ^i' accident, fhe deceased was aged about 25 years. He was eaming Rs.4000/- per monfh by agricultiiral aad labour works. The claiaiaats beiag dependents/legal representatives have filed claun petition for the award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 17,80,000/- on various heads ia Ueu of deafh of fhe deceased. 3. Mr. Saurabh Sharaia, learaed counsel for respondent no.5 subinits that fhe Jeep which inet with the accident ia question was beiag used for own purpose, but ia fhe First Information Report lodged by the appeUaat, he himself stated fhat his vehicle was beiag used for traiisporting saad for fhe purpose of constniction works as he was a contractor which itself shows that the vehicle was beiag used for commercial piupose fhough fhe same was insured as a private vehicle. Therefore, ia our opiaion, fhe Insurance Comipaiiy has rightiy been exonerated froin the liabiLlty regardiag paynient of conipensatidn. 4. At fhis stage, learaed counsel for fhe appeUant also contends fliat the quaiitum has wrongly been assessed by fhe Claims Tribunal aad fhe conipensation fixed by fhe Tnbunal is exorbitaat. , 5. We have heard leamed counsel for fhe parties aad also perused the records of fhe Tribunal. We have considered fhe conipensation fixed by fhe Tnbuual aad found that it is excessive. v 6. The annual inco^ae of fhe deceased who was a bachelor was assessed as Rs.28,800/-. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3 towards personal aad Uviag expenses which is not proper. ^ y / ^•:""^ '"^^^" ^} Since fhe deceased was bachelor, lh (one hatf) has to be deducted. Therefore, after deducting 50% towards personal aad Uving expenses fhe reinamder fhat is loss of annual dependency coines to Rs. 14,400/". The Tribiinal has appUed fhe niiiltiplier 15 which seem.s to be on higher side. Siace fhe parents beiag clamiants, fhe age of the parents is to be considered, The average age of fhe parents is 45 years aad accordiag to the mnltipUer scale given ia Sarla Vernw. (Smt.) -vs' Delhi Treinspart CarparaUon and another (Para 40) reported ia (2009) SCC 121, multiplier 14 would be appUcable. On applyiag laultipUer 14, fhe total loss of dependency was worked out as Rs.2,01,600/- (14,400 x 14). Besides fhis, the claunaats would be entitled to get Rs.5000/- each (Total Rs.10,000/-) for k»ss of love aad affection, Rs.5000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5000 for funeral expenses which ia all coines to Rs.20,000/- under ofher heads. If we add fhis amo.unt to the total loss of dependency fhat is Rs,2,01,600, fhe total compensation comes to Rs.2,21,600/- which the clarmaats are entitled to receive froin fhe appeUaat. The Tribunal after deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses aad applying mLultipUer 15 has assessed ftie total loss ofmcome as Rs.2,88,000/- aad has further graated Rs.45,000/- under fhe ofher heads (total Rs.3,33,000/-) which ia our opinion is excessive. Therefore, fhe award of the todbunal is Uable to be xnodi&ed to flie extent of Rs.2,,'88,000/-. Further the Tribunal has granted penal iaterest @ 8% after fhe stipulated period which is not proper. "'^.^:. l-lm^ ^' ^- 7. Therefore, we allow this appeal ia part aad reduce fhe amount of compensation to Rs.2,21,600/- which shall carry siiaple iaterest @ 6% per aDJiuiui fhrough out froin the date of filing of fhe claim petiUon tiU fhe payiaent is inade. The penal uiterest iniposed by fhe Tribunal is set aside aad fhe award is niodi&ed ia ftie above tenns. The rest of fhe conditions inentioned ia fhe award shaU reinam iatact. 8. The claunarLts would be entitied to recover fhe amount of coinpensation along-wifh ititerest froni fhe appeUaat aad not froin fhe Insiiraace Coxnpaay as directed by fhe Tribunal to pay aad recover by fhe iasurer, However, in case fhe aaiount has already been paid as a result of deposit of fhe msuraace company, it will be open for fhe Insurance Corapaay to recover fhe same from. fhe appeUaat/owner aad the excessive amount, if paid, be recovered from fhe clamiaats but tf fhe ainount is stiU lyiiig ia deposit or aay part fhereof, fhe s^acae shall be refiinded to fhe iasuraace coinpaBy. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Rao \