IN THE HON'BLE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR OF2008 ONmsnBent M.A.CC) No. OF 2008 (APPEAL VALUED AT Rs. 7.68,000 /-) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLES ACT. 1988 APP^LLANT (Non- Applicant No. 1) ^^tJnited India Insurance Company Limited., Branch-Offlce, Bramha Road, Ambikapur, Distt.-Surguja (C.G.). Versus RESPONDENTS 1.. (APPLICANTNO.l) (APPLICANT N0.2) (APPLICANT N0.3) (APPLICANT N0.4) (APPLICANT N0.5) > ^- 5. ,.-—(••• ^^•Tto-:-;r^"'..^&rp^ '^^s^f BA®d..--"' /^' (NON-APPLICANT N0.2) 6. .(MON APPLICANT N0.3) :r ^.„...„.„„„....».„, ^. Kusum Devi, Wd/o- Late Sunderrlal, aged about- 30 years, Anil Kumar, S/0- Late Sunderlal, aged-09 years, Manish Kumar, S/0- Late Sunderlal, aged-08 years, Puran, S /o- Jhari, aged-65 years, Pawro Bai, W/0-Puran, aged-60 years, Respondent no.2 8& 3 are Minor, through their -Mother Kusum Devi (Respondent no.l). Respondent no.l to 5 all are Original R/0-Sumerpur, Tah. Surajpur, Distt.- Surguja (CG).' ^^Narmada Prasad Brahman, R/0- Barbaspur, P.S. & Tah. Manendragarh, Distt.-Koria (CG) (Truck owner). Sukhlal Singh, S/ o-Amarnath Singh, C/0-Narmada Maharaj, Barbaspur, P.S. & Tah.- Manendragarh, Distt.-Koria (CG)(Truck-driver). HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR D.B.: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, JJ. Appellant Non-applicant No.1 Respondents M.A.(C)No.1010/2008 United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Kusum Devi and Others [Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988] Present: - ,3hri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for the appellant. Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel for respondents No.4 & 5. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 09th day of May, 2011) PerJ.JM, QUDDUSI 1. This appeal has been filed by the appetlant/lnsurance Company against the impugned award dated 21-01-2008 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (F.T.C.), Manendragarh, (hereinarter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim Case No.24/2007, in so far as it relates to quantum part only. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21-05-2006 at about 8 P.M., the deceased-Sunderlat by his motorcycle bearing Registration No.CG-16-C/0575 was going to Manendragarh from Baikunthpur. On the way, near Noa Nala, Nagpur, non-applicant No.S/driver by driving Truck bearing Registratson No.CG-10-ZB- 2012, rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle, as a result of which, Sunderlal received injuries. For treatment, Sunderlal was taken to Central Hospital, Manendragarh, where he died. The deceased was working as Assistant Grade-111 in the Tahsil Office, Manendragarh and earning Rs.5,182/- monthly, 3. Vide Claim Case No.24/2007, the claimants-legal heirs of the deceased- Sunderlal filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehictes Act, 1988 o9i, ^^.^•••'.'•M ^'•:.yi^\' ^ssssa '^•^^^^ ^v:i!€ ^ /^' "'%.. S (ferf^ 1 v -:... '^tl i^J z. before the Claims Tribunal for award of a total compensation of Rs.17,53,968/- under various heads owing to loss of income as also for expenses incurred towards medical treatment. 4. Learned Claims Tribunal having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record held that the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.7,68,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realization holding the liability on the non-applicant No.l/lnsurance Company to pay the compensation. Aggrieved by the said award, the appeltant/lnsurance Company has filed this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the widow of the deceased-Sunderlal has got compassionate appointment and this fact has not been noticed by the Claims Tribunal. Learned counsel next contended that the multiplier has not been used properly. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the lower Court record and found that in the claim petition filed before the Tribunal, the principle laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Sar/a Verma (Smt) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, should have been followed by the Tribunal, but that has not been done. Therefore, in our opinion, it is a fit case of remand the matter to the Tribunal for decision afresh. 7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we allow the appeal in part, set-aside ^the impugned award dated 21-01-2008 and remit back the matter to the Tribunal for decision afresh. No order as to costs. 8. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend their pleadings, adduce further evidence again in support of their pleadings and may file further documents and get the documents verified etc. Out of the deposited 'p;;';'f':'-^^,>>': .^-^;.y,'^-'^; %;';;?^^^..;--.Y ^v^Sy'^y- ^^^^^& ^^;^^? ^iSi^ [l^l^^ •> amount, Rs.1 Lakh has already been given to the widow of the deceased. The parents of the deceased are senior citizens aged about 60 & 65 year, therefore, Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to each of them and rest of the amount shall be kept in the fixed deposit in a nationalized bank and remain in deposit till fresh decision is made. 9. The lower Courts record shatt be sent back forthwith. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^: '^v'^ ^:^^^'^ '^'^'^.r ^^:g^^ ^:;^"^' '^^^^•w:^ Tumane .^'?';^'.. :^ 's