•^^..K^-M, 'rsse"lB""' "'" ^r) /J...Sl..^^9-* ^..-•----Vki"r'"rT" ' .1 < IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M. A. No._<T APPELLANT Defendaat No.3 RESPONDENT Clauaant No. 1 RESPONDENT Claimant No.2 RESODNENT Claimant No.3 RESPODNENT Claimaiit No.4 / 2006 RESPONDENT Defendant No. RESPQNDENT DefendEint No. 2 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Divisional OfBce, Nahar Building, Malviya Nagar, Durg (C.G.). -Versus - 1. Siat. Anju Jain, 38 years, Wd/o Late Shri Rajtaimar Jain. 2. L ^u- Shikha Jain, 15 years, ^ D/o Late Shri Rajkuinar Jain. 3. t^ Chandresh Jain, 12 years, ^ 4. cr S/o Late Shri Rqkumar Jaiii, Kii. Nikita Jain, 1.0 years, D/o Late Shri Rajkumar Jaia. Respondents No. 2 to 4 are miaor, Through niofher aad natural Guardian Smt. Anju Jain, Respondent No.l. All R/o Satti Chowk, Ganjpara, Durg (C.G.). 5.^ Shri Munshi Khan, 40 yeare, /7 ^S/ 6 Shri Ajij Khan, R/o 204, Sanoth, Delhi- 110040. 6. fi Shri Rashid Ahined, 42 years, 5/o Shri Ajij Khan, R/o 204, Sanofh, APPEAL Delbi—110040. UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VBHICLBS ACT, 1988. n^\ HieH COURT QF CHHATriSfi.ARH AT BILASPUR OlViSION_BENe;H HON'BLE %R. I.^.QU&SSUSI & HON'BLE MR. 6ULAM AUNHAJUD&IN. JJ. Appeliant ResBondents M.A. (c1 No.2^/2006 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Anju Jain & others. AAr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate for the appetlant. ~H\r. Rajendrn Tripothi Advocofe for the respondent No.l. M,r. 6. Khetrapa!, Advocate for the respondent Na.Z to 4. Mr. B.P. &upta, Advocate for the respondents No.5 & 6 ^Ofh Juiy, 2011} I-m. Quddusi. J; 1. By way of this appeol under Section 173 of the AAotor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act, 1988'), the appellant-InsuranceCompnny has challenaed the aiward dated 24.8.2006 passed by the learned AAotor Accident Ctaims Tribunat, Durg (for short ^he Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.8/06. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are thnt decensed Rajkumar Jain along with his family members had gone to Jammu for devi dcrshcn in vehicle bearing registration number bLS-CH-2316 and when they were returning by the said vehicle, near Muruthal-Sonepat the said vehicte, due to rash nnd negli9ent driving by its driver, has met with an accident with the truck pairked on the road side, as a resuit the deceased sustoined grievous-injuries afid died. The ciaimants, who are widow & children of the deceased, have filed a claim aoDlicotion before the Claims Tribunal seekinq comoensation to the tune of fts.22,25,835/- on the ground that the decetised was the sole enrning member in the family and they were dependent on his earninas. 3. The Ciaims Tribunal.. ofter considering the material available on record, allowed claim application of the claimants, awarded o compensation of Rs.16,.78,730/- and fastened liability on the appellant herein to pay compensation. ^' 4. Learned counsel for the appeltant would submit that the vehicle, N/hich is a private car, was insured under n package policy (comprehensive policy) and no extra premium was paid to cover the risk of possengers traveling in it. l-1e further submits that while assessing compensotion the Claims Tribunnl has not deducted theomount of income tnx from the annual incoms of the deceosed, as hetd by the Hon'bte Supreme Court in the matter of Soria Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport' Corporation & anotter reported in (200% 6 SCC 121 andtherefore,there is miscalcutation. a. On the other hnnd, learned counsel 'for the respondents have supported the impugned award. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parttes. We have also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal as also impugned award. 7. So far as the first argument advanced by learned counsel for the appeilant is concerned, the Insurance Regulotory and Development Authority vide its circuior dnted 16.11.2009, addressed to all the 6eneral Insurance Companies, directed that insured's liability in respect of occupant (s) carried in a privote car and piilion rider carried on two-wheelers is covered under the Standard AAotor Package Poticy. This argument, therefore, has no force. 8. So far as the quantum part of the impugned award is concerned, it is true that the application fited by the insurance company under Section 170 of the Act, 1988 seeking permission to contest the claim on all available grounds has been rejected, but we feelthat if it is brought ta.the notice of this Court that the Ctnims Tribunal has not calculoted the amount of compensation properly or while fixing compensotion has not followed the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which ought to have been followed, it is the duty of this Court- to rectify any such mistake comniitt-ed by the Claims Tribunal. 9. Perusnl of the impugned awnrd shows thort- the Clainis Tribunal while nssessing loss of dependency has not followed the law of land i.e. Serta Verma (Smt.) aml othes Vs. Delhi Transpw^ Corporatwn & another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and thus committed manifest error, Therefore, we propose to exaniine quantum part of the impu9ned nui/ard. .. •^-^"'-a^:". Q 10. After careful examination, we assess annual income of the deceased as Rs.1,82,584/-, ns shcwn in the income tax return filed by the deceased for the assesaiient year 2005-06, howeva-, since the deceased had paid an amount of Rs.31,500/- towards income tax, the some is to be deducted from the annual income of the deceased. Thus, net total income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,51,084/-. Since there are four cltiimants, 1/4 towo-ds personal and living expenditure of the deceased is to be deducted and not 1/3 as deducted by the C!aims Tr'ibunal. Further, at the tt'me of acc'dent the deceased was 42 years of age and therefore as per Sarla Verma's case fsuora) multiolier of 14 would be apolicable and not of 15 as aDDiied by the Claims Tribunal. Accordingty, the total toss of dependency u/ould come to Rs. 15,86,382/- (151084 - 37771 x 14). Besides this, the claimants are entitied for Rs.17,900/- under other heads, as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Therefore, the total amount of compensation for which the claimants are entitied for is Rs. 16.04,282/-. 11. In the resutt, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned awwd is modify to the extent that now the claimants shall be entitled for Rs.16,04,282/- as compensation in place of Rs.16,60,830/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No.8/2006 (Smt. Anju Jdn & others Vs. Munshi Khan & others). They shall aiso be entitied for Simple Interest ©9% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of filing of application till octuol payment is made. Condition imposed bythe Claims Tribunal regarding depositof Rs.4 Lacs each in the names of claimants shall remain intact, however, now the claimanT-Smt. Anju Jain shall only beentiTted to receive balance amount along WiTh interest, in cash. 12. The appenLi^niiowed to the extent indicated above. No order cs to costs^ Roshan/- I.M.Quddusi Judge G.Miniiajjudin