IN THE HIGH COURTJUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (c)No . ^ OF-3-ee?- 3-ao APPELLANT (Insurer) le Oriental rnsurance Company Limited, Division Office, Bilaspur Through bivisinol Mana9er ' bivision Office Korba, Oriental Insurance co. Geetanjli Bhawan Main Road Korba C.G. N' .^-j-^/o"^o^^^yjU'o'^'^"^-^o^^'^1^. ^ Versus RESPONDENTS: < Bhai Bhairaw Prasad Pandey ^' S/o Vijay Shankar ^"i ^fl"" Pandey Cast Brahman ^•s-i^' -A •' ^^'y' ^'^ .s^- itls3c- ..X ^ Owner Driver of vehicle Gursing co. through proprietor Subash Agarwal Agroha marg Korba Th.+ Distrect Korba C.G. Dharmdas S/o Dokri das cast panika Aged 26 years R/o Damkhacha P.S. Korba Polic chouki Urga District korba C.G. aged 42 years T>^'' Q-3-2. Seema Pandey W/o Bhairav Prasad Pandey aged 41 years caste Brahin^n^^.^^ p.Sa*^offl'^'c/- | •it^^tW6:'5w'V^Y.'.^wi i ,.(i-o^ <3c«^g-iV-^t^^n*m '; M/s "'Agarwal Stone ;j wy^^yyy: APPEAL U/S 173"OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT AGAINST THE AWARD/ORDER DATED 21.0^.2007 PASSED BY THE eHIEF MOTOR ACCIDENT'" CLAIM TRIBUNAL, JANJJGIK^ CHAMPA (C.G.) PRESIDING OVER BYSHRI PRABHAT" SHASHTRI IN C.T.NO.09/2006. -_^ << \, -«», \ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble I. M. QUDDUSI 8s Hon'ble MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, JJ M.AfCl No. 171/2008 APPELL.ANT: The Oriental Insuraace Compaay Limited Vs. RESPONDEBTS: Bhairaw Prasad Pandey and others ^ MISC. APPEAL ONDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE8 ACT, 1988 Appearance: Mr. Ghanshyam. Patel, couasel for the appeUants. Mr. Sumit Siugh, couasel for fhe respondents. •SA -»1 fc x \. ORAL ORDER (06.05.2011) PCT I.M. QUDDUSI. J, 1. This appeal has been ffled by the Insurance Compaay against fheinipugned award dated 21.08.2007 passed by fhe Chief Motor Accident Clauns TribTinal Janjgir Chanapa, Distt. Jaajgir Champa (C.G) in Claim Case No.09/2006 on the question 01 liability as also quautum.. 2., The appeUaut had got permission u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. Brief facts of the case as per the version of fhe claunants are that on 30.06.2004 deceased Ambikesh Pandey was goiag towards Cham.pa by his luotorcycle. On fhe way at about 7.30 a.ni., one Truck bearuig Regn.No. 12-C/1804 which was <l beiag driven by-.respoiident no.4 in a rash aad negUgent laaiiner sddshed. the inotor cycle of the deceased on fhe ^i. •Jg^W^S,.WMii^^~ -»•» x bridge of Hasdeo river, as a result of which, he died on fhe spot. He was declared dead by B.D.M. Hospital.Champa.At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 24 years; he was working as Assistaat Engmeer uader Bajraag Contractor aud was eanung Rs.20,000/- per inonfh. The claunaats being dependents/legal heirs have filed claim petition u/s 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1,988 for the award of coiapensation to fhe tune of Rs. 46,80,000/- on various heads. Leamed Clauns Tribunal has partly allowed the claiin petition holding that the offending Truck No.C.G. 12-C/1804, which was beiag drivea by respondent no.4 in a rash and negUgent mnnnpr, dashed the inotorcycle ofAmbikesh as a result of which he'died; there was no breach of poBcy conditions of fbe iasuraace policy aad there was no contributoiy negUgence on fhe part offhe deceased. We have perused the Lower Coiirt Records aad foiuid that ao evidence {roTsx RTO Bilaspur or Korba has been led. Though two certtficates are luade available and filed by the Insurance Conipany before the Tnbiuial, yet in Certificate (Ex.N.A-3) issued by the lu.vestigator, Korba it is inentioned that the driviag license was valid upto 06.10.2007 and the same was itutially issued for Light Motor Vehicle only by CA Bilaspur and fhereafter he aUowed to drive Heavy Goods Vehicles wifh effect fi-om 13,08.1998, In another Certificate Ex.N.A-2 issued by the RTO Bilaspur it has been mentioaed fhat licence of LI|(IV was issued on 09.05.1997 and was valid upto 6.5.2017 b.ut heavy goods vehicle was allowed with effect \a.. < 1x from 13.08.1998 aad revised for the period 13.8.1998 to 12.8.2001 aad 24.08.2001 to 12.08.2004. A pemsal ofcopy ofdriving license (Ex.N.A.4) further shows tbat itwas issued ia dupUcate by the District Transport Officer, Korba (Ex.N.A.4) iu which validily of the Driviag License (DL) has been inentioned uptQ 06.10.2007 and atlowed to drive heayy goods vehicle with effecffix)in 13.08.1998. Thereafter, in absence of aay evidence contorary to the same it caruiot be said that the driver was not baving valid and efiective driviag Ucense, fherefore, fhere is no scope of iaterference in. fhe findm.gs given by fhe Tribunal. With regard to contributory aegligence, the FIR itself speaks fhat fhe Truck Driver was driviag it rashly aud negl^enfly aud could not control fhe speed of fhe Truck therefore accident took place and nothiag contrary has coiue out ia this regard. The leamed Trial Court has also recorded a findmg that on the basis of Fiaal Report (Ex.P. 1), FIR (Ex.P- 2) aad the uifennation regardiag uiitLmely death (Ex. P-3) it is inade clear fbat fhere was rash and negl^ence on fhe part of respondent no.4 only. Therefore, the question ofcontnbutoiy negligence is ruled out. Now coming to the question of quautuin, accordiag to the salaiy certificate (Ex.P-19), the deceased was workiag as Engiaeer aad was gettiag a monthly salaiy of Rs.20,000/- per aanuiu. However, the Tnbunal has taken the incoiue of fhe deceased as Rs.8000/- per monfh. and fherefore, it does not cafl for our interference. Siace the deceased was bachelor, one half(l/2) has to be deducted towards personal \'. —-.^Li^ and liviag expenses, but the Tnbunal has deducted 1/3rd whicb is not proper ia view of fhe decision of the Supreine Court in Sarla Venna. (Snit.) -vs- Delhl Transport Corporcttion. cwid emother reported in (S009) 6SCC 121, where it has been held in para 31 that ia case the deceased was a bachelor aud the claunaats are parents, nonnaUy, 50% is deducted as personal and liviug expenses because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Therefore, upon deducting 50%, loss of dependency coines to Rs.4000/- per inonfh and Rs.48,000/- per annuin. The Tribunal has appUed inultiplier 15, which seeins to be sUghfly on higher side. In fhe instant case, fhe parents being claimarits, the age of the parents are to be considered. The ages ofthe parents were shown to be 42 aud 41 years aad fheir average alge coines to 41 Vi years, therefore, they coine under the age group of 41 to 45 years. Accordiag to the multiplier scale giveu in para 40 of Snr?a Venna's Case (supra), inultiplier 14 would be appUcable fbr fhe age group of41 to 45 years. Therefore, on applyiag inultiplier 14 to the aruiual loss of dependency, the total loss of dependency wo.uld come to Rs.6,72,000/- (48000 x 14). However, the ,Tribunal after deducting l/3rd towards personal expenscs and applyiag laultipUer 15 has assessed the total loss of dependency as Rs.9,60,000/-, which ia our opmion, is. excessive and is hereby reduced to Rs.6,72,000/-. Besides . fhis, fhe olauaaats are also entitled to Rs.10,000/- each (fhat is Rs.20,000 for both the claimaats) towards loss of love and affetetion; Rs.10,000/- for loss ofestate, Rs.5000/- fuiiersl experises, wluch ia all coines to Rs.35,000/- under M \a. .^•-. '-A ^ - •t^. ovy 3§pnf BAB»SBAUI(S u»q°WBJPUIUBI\[ -/PS --•.? ^ agpnf isnppnt)-I\['I -/PS •ynsfai aiBiaai neqs ^Biinquj, aip. jo PIIEMB 3tp.jo saortTpaoo atp jo ^say -sjea^ gjopouad B joj spieg p3ZI[BUOpBM B UI fWBVIIB^Q q3B3 JO 3VCCBSI 3Tp TC[ p3^Teod3p 3qi[BT[8 qorqA qosa -/OOS'SS'£"sa ST :tetR aoR.iodo.id lenba UI -tmiOTEIB pTBS 3Tp 3AI303J O^ p3p.t^U3 3-tB Sl.TtBUttBIO /aqj, •6 •(s)^soo o^ se -lapio ON ^aa(X3 aAoqe 3Tp. tn pagipom si 2,OOS'8'TS pa^P PIBMB paTiSnduii aqj, 'ued ui p3AO{[e si {Badds 3TR 'ipisai aTp ai -g •apBttt si ^uanufed aip ^p uoTtpad vaiey) sq^ jo Smig sip jo ayap aq^. mckg-mniittB jad %5 @ ^sajatiii AUBO OSIB neqs ^unouiE pres aqj, 'foOO'Se + 000'g2.'9) -/000'^0'A'8y °^ S3UI03 noT»BSTt3duio3^o^ 3tR 'Aouapiisdap jo sso^ ^o^ atp. o^'ycm.ovas sixp SiiippB jayy 'spBaq jsqio 3tp