^ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ABPELLANT Hyi^uQ M.A.NO. /6)^'^-OF2004. /United India Insurance Company Ltd., ON-APPLICANT N0. 3 RESPONDENTS / f—' Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) VE R SU S :-, 1 Smt. Gita Bai, aged about 28 years, Wife ofLate Balluram Yadav alias Mmma Yadav, 1: Ku. Pumima Yadav, aged about 12 years, daughter ofLate Balluram Yadav alias IVIunna Yadav, ^ 3. Sandip Yadav, aged about 7 years, son / /' of Late Balluram Yadav alias Munna Yadav, 4. Ganesh Yadav, aged about 1 years, son of Late Balluram Yadav alias Munna Yadav, respondent no. 2 and 4, minor, through their mother Smt Gita Bai Ya^av, 5. Shyamlal Yadav, aged about 55 years, son ofLate Shri Dular Yadav, All resident ofVillage Sirgitti, Police Station Tarbhar, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) CLAIMANTS 6. ^Latiram Sahu, aged about 29 years, son )f Haldhar Sahu, Occupation Tmck Driver, resident ofVillage Singhpur, Contd..2.. ^/ W^^^^&^^.^^ -...;-.-~3nr-3 ^-—-.s^ <f • 7 • - • A • - Police Station Lalbagh, rural area Rajnandgaon, Disfa-ict Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh), 7. Yogesh Kymar Sahu, son of Shri ^ Haldhar Sahu, resident of Village Singhpur, Police Station Lalbagh, rural area Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon(Chhattisgarh). NON-APPLICANT N0. I AND 2 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 ^'" (Claim in appeal valued at Rs. 4,45,0007- only) '-%^??T7'^Nf57^S?®3'??£^^ HIGItCOURTQF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.No. 1087/2004 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Gita Bai and others ^•' DB:- HON'BLE SHRI I.M. QUDDUSI & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL. JJ PRESBNT:- Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Sushobhit Singh, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 5. ' Shri Anand Shukla, Advocate, for the respondents No. 6 and 7. ORAL ORDER (22-10-2010) Per I.M. Quddusi, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the award dated 15th September, 2004 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No.15/2004. Facts of the case in brief are that on 13-12-2003 at about 10.15 p.m. Balluram Yadav alias Munna Yadav (since deceased) was going to Raipur by driving truck bearing registration No. WB 23/3436 loaded with salt. When the said truck reached near Glass Factory, village Hardi, the driver of the truck bearing registration No. CG 08/ZC-0180 going from BUaspur to Raipur driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the truck of the deceased, as a result of which the truck of the deceased turned turtle and the deceased died on spot due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The claimant being legal heirs of the deceased filed an application under Section 166 of the ^- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming Rs. 12,40,000/-as compensation for the death of the deceased. Learned Tribunal vide impugned award awarded Rs. 4,45,000/- to the claimants holding the appellant/Insurance company liable for its payment. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has erred in not holding contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles. He has further contended that the multiplier applied is on higher side. In the instant case, no evidence has been led by the appellant /Insurance Company or any of the non- applications before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has only relied upon the spot may (Ex. P-4) which shows that the truck in which the deceased was driver was at fB' position which is veiy near to the place of accident, whereas the vehicle whose driver, according to the Tribunal, has committed accident, is 15 steps away from the place of accident. The truck bearing registration No. WB 23/3436 was a loaded truck (driver of which died due to the accident) whereas the truck bearing registration No. CG 08/ZC-0180 was not loaded. Both the trucks got damaged due to collision, therefore a perusal of the spot map shows that no inference can be drawn that there was contributory negligence and the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is not sustainable. In respect of quantum, multiplier of 18 has been applied and 1/3rd of the income of the deceased has been reduced as standard deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased. As per Sarla Verma's case, as in the instant matter the claimants were 5 in number, the standard deduction for personal expenses y 8. should have been I/4th of the salary. However, niultiplier of 17 should have been applied instead of 18. In case, we apply standard deduction at the rate of 1/4th, calculating income ofthe deceased at the rate of Rs. 36,000/- per annum, the amount would come to Rs. 9,000/- and loss of dependency would come to Rs. 27,000/- per annum. Ifwe apply multiplier of 17 in Rs. 27,000/-, the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 4,59,000/- whereas the Tribunal has only awarded Rs. 4,45,000/- therefore, it comes to higher side instead of lower side. However as no cross-objection has been filed by the claimants, we only dismiss this appeal without any observation in this regard. In the result, the appeal being without substances, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- LM. Quddusi Judge Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge g) ^ C1