M 2 OF 2 le Orienta! Insurance Company Ltd. Raigarh C.G. -• -^ "5 -. >- .. &:. ••«^sns .-N f^/ ^/^ ^•^/y ^///JA/^' ^ /,^ /bs <^"(?' ^ ^ 's U'G Pooran Singh^Choudhary S/o Late Kamai Singh Choudhary, Aged about ri . Tirith Kunwar W/o Pooran Singh jt 55 Years. UccupaTion - NoTnin< Santosh Kumcr Choudhary S/o Pooran Singh Aged about 29 Year's. Aii r'eSDORdent are R/o Vi'liaqe rict Raigarh C.&. Ram Supta S/o Aqed [S'hriou'ti ir; Presentiy R/o House of Pramod bhroie, ViSlooe Gorkha P.5. KoTra Road &istrict Raigar'h C.6. Rajesh Agarwo!' S/o Devi Prasad Agarwai Aged about 45 Years Occupation -Vehicle owner Proprietor m/s ,¥,00 Bhawani Transport Through fteal Choice, in front of Sovernment h C:G. ^a VE! '•e. A fi, ^^ E ^ ith A12.ATI ^ HICrK COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPBAL (Cl N0. 42 OE' 2011 APPELLANT/ INSURER RBSPOHDBBTS The Oncu{al lusiu-aucc Go. Ltd. Versus Pooraa Sio.gh Choudhaiy aad offaers. APPEIAL UNDBR SECTION 173 OF THE MOT0R VEHSCLES ACT,1988 Divisioa Beneh: Hon'ble SIu'i I.M. 0>nddasi & Hon'ble Shri G,Mlaliainddin._JJ, Present: Shri Abhishek Sinha, counsel for the appeBant Shri Amit Sharma, counsel for respODdent No. 1 to 3. None for respondents No. 4 & 5. ORALORDER (Passed oa 23"' day of Hovember, 2011) Per I.M. Gnddusi. J. Thls appeal has been {3ed by the appeUant/Oriental Iiisurauc-e Co. Ltd. agaiast the impugued award dated 13-10-2010 passed by Fourffa Addltional Motor Accident Clnims Tribunal, (F.T.C.), Raigai-h (for short 'the Claims TribimaB 'm Claim Case No.34/2008, iu so far as it relates to quantam pat-t onty. 2. Brieffacts ofthe case accordingto claimauts are fhatoaOS- 10-2008 at about 12-1S P.M., fhe deceased Mu'lidliai- whlle neturning from Raigarli Rsulway Stetiou to VQlecge Uchchbhitthi ou motorcycte beariug registration No. C.G. 13-E/2212, lu. the vffliage Gorkha ia front of New Jaaki Hotel at Mam Road, the offendiug vehicle Diunper bearing registration No. C.Q. 13-D/0936, owned by nou-applicant/iTespondent No.5 henein, coming behiad fhe inotorcycle, dashed the uiotDrcycle. This accjdeut had occiMTed due to rash aud negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle dumper as a result of whlch Murlidhar died ou fhe spot. The report of the lucideut was lodged in ttte P&lice Station. 3. The c]auuauts belng legal heirs of the deceased filed a petition iiuder Section 16G ofthe MotorVehicles Act (for short fhe Act, 1988^ before fhe Claims Tribuual claiiBUig total isaK coiupensation of Rs.52,50,000/- for the death ofdeceased In the said accMeut. 4. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiuy of evidence led, niaterial placed aud subuitesious juiade by the parties, has awarded a total sum. of Rs.43,50,000/'- as conipensation atong wlth luterest @ Wo per aruiuui, hoMiug the nou-applicants joiiifty and severaUy liable to pay fhe atiaoziut ofcoiapeusation. 5. We have heard learned couusel for tlie partics and perused the records oftlie Claims Tribflnal as also the im.pugned award. 6. The learued Claiais Trlbunal has Iield that at ftte tuae of accident as fhe deceased was aged between 26 to 30 yeara aud his monfUy iacome was Rs.30,000/- per month. The claimauts No. 1 & 2 were leeal heirs offhe deceased and claunaiit No.3 waa brother of the deceased. Tberefore, only fhe pareats are entitled to get GOinpeusatiou aad clakuaat No.3 is aot entifled for couipeusatiou. as he was not depeadent on fhe deceased. 7. The learned Tribunal assessed fh.e luconie of fhe deceased as Rs.30,000/- per month; by deducting l/3td of it towards personal aud Uviug expeiises ie. Rs.10,000/-, fhe loss of dependency was assessed as Rs. 20,000/- per nionth aad Rs. 2,40,000/- (20,000 X 12) per annma. Taking mto accouut the age of the deceased as 2G to 30 years and that he was a bachelor, fhe Clakus Tribunal faas applied the laultiiAier of 18 and awarded fhe corupensation on account ofloss ofdependency as Rs. 43,20,000/-. Learned Tribunal has fiu-ther awaided Rs.5,000/- towards faueral expenses; Rs. 10,000/- each to the clainiants towaids love and affection aud Rs. 10,000/- towai'ds loss of estate, Rs.1000/- towanls traasportatiou expenses aad fhus awai-ded a total sum of Rs.43,56,000/- to tiie claimaats as coiapeusatioiit along wifh interest @ 9% per annnm. 8. In view of fhe judgment of Hou'ble the Suprenie Court la fhe matter of Sarla Verma. (SmS) and cthcrs va. DeShi Transport Corporation anct Aiwther, reported ia {2GOS} 6 SCC 121, where the deceased was a bachelor and fhe claimants were parents, it was held tbat only fhe paieuts wouM be eousidened as dependents and 50% of fhe earnlug would be treated as personal /i^^ '^^^ih '^ t "u:m-s!|,g jj v^ .4- aad livlng expenses of the bachelor aud SfP/o aa the contribution to fhe famity. Further, looldng to the average -age of fhe pareats 60 + 55 = 57.5 i.e. 58 years, in vsew of fbe decision iu Sarla Verma's case (supra), iu the iastant case, the appropriate jiiiiltiplier would be 9. Therefore, learned Tribunal has ceftamly en'ed iu calculating the auioiult of compensation by applyiug the inultipUer of 18 and by dcducting l/3rf only towards pcrsonal aiid liviug expenses ofthe deceased. 9. Therefore, takiag into accouut tlie monthly lacoxae of the deceased as Rs.16,969/- P.M. and by deduetiag Rs. 969/- which were beiug graated towards aBowaiices, fhe inoBfhly iaeonie of fhe deceased coiaes to Rs. 16,000/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, after deducting 30% tcwards persoual and livia^ expenses of the deceaaed, the monthty loss of dependency coiue to Rs.8,000/-. By adding 50% of promotional prospects which coities to Rs. 4,000/- per luonth aud Rs. 1,44,000/- per anniim and by applying the multiplier of 9, the amount of compensation on account of loss of dependency would be Rs. 1,44,000 X 9= 12,96,000/-. 10. Further after addlng Rs.10,000/- towards loss ofestate, as they have lost a young boy, Rs.10,000/- towards losa oftove and affection and Rs.5,000/- for fuueral expenses, the total ajBiOuut of compensation works out to Rs.13,21,000/-. Thus, fhe clakuauts are entitled for the amouat of Rs.13,21,000/- iastead of Rs. 43,56,000/- as was awarded by the learned Tribuaal. 11. In view of flie above, fhe appeal is allowed in part and the ainount of conipensatioja. is reduced to Ihe above extent. The clainiants are entifled for Rs.13,21,000/- along wlth 6% luterest froia fhe date offiling offhe claini petition tffi its payiaent. 12. Learned coiuisel for the appeUant has subinltted that the appeUant has akcady deposited Rs.10,00,000/- fherefore, the ^^5H^^ A " ,^r ,,^-^ 6'1"--...,3«-.-. -] ?i" 'VSSC^ H '•i -~-l"-a ^ reiualuiiig: a-LO.ount sh&u be paid to tli Li.auis aioiig wiai U-Lt^- G/At ^*. - „_ -L-3- _ _1 _ ^. _ _ .r jc~-i • — „. - -f —i-- --s ^ • -^- uTieresL ^ o'yo per a-iinu.iii ii'oiXi ulc ua.xe 02 liiuig 01 uie: c'ia pcuuou 'iiii uie paviueui is Biaae QJ :'OBipeiisauou as assess-ecl Isy tliis Cou.rt, pcutioil till tlis ua.Vludit 1s Bisidc 011 u.j.e totcil a-oiouiit of 1^0 oraer &.s 10 COSTS. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge r^f