APPELLANT ^. IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C)No.- ?l°)^|3q- :- . DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE OR1ENTAL 1NSURANCE CO. LIMITED., MALVIYA NAGAR CHOWK, DURGA (C.G.) (INSURER OF TRUCK N0.- W.B./23/8474 ) Vrs. RESPONDENTS ^. :-1., SMT. MANJEET KAUR W/0 LATE KARAMJEET SINGH AGE 35 YRS., 2. r. KARAN DEEP SINGH S/0 LATE KARAMJEET SINGH AGE 8 YRS., 3. C KU. SHARL1N KAUR D/0 LATE KARAMJEET SINGH AGE 3 YRS., 4. ^ BISHAN SINGH S/0 MEGA SINGH AGE 65 YRS., A •s5- ^ ^'T^' ^ ...^ 6. 7. SMT. JAG1R KAUR W/0 BISHAN SINGH AGE 60 YRS., MINOR THROUGH GUARDIAN, MOTHER SMT. MANJEET KAUR W/0 LATE KARAMJEET SINGH ALL RESIDENT OF QUATER N0.- 414, NEAR USHA PRINTING PRESS, NEW KHURSHIPAR, BHILAI, THANA- CHAWANI, TAH. & DISTT.- DURG C.G. BHOLA RAM VERMA S/0 BHAGWAN VERMA, RESIDENT OF O.T.S. LIMITED AAMANAKA, RAIPUR, TAH. & DISTT.- RAIPUR C.G. ( DRIVER OF VEHICLE N0.- W.B./23/8474) M/S. G.R. SOS INVESTMENT LIMITED , P~8, NEW C.I.T. ROAD COLCATA-73 (WEST BENGAL) ( OWNER OF VEHICLE N0.- W.B./23/8474) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILA8PUR DB: HON»BLBI.M. QUDDU8I & HON»BLEPRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ M. A (Cl. No. 1194 OP 2007 Vs. MI8C. APPBAL U/S 173 OF THB M6TOR VBHICLBS ACT. 1988 APPEARANCE: Mr. Sudldr Agrawal, coiinsel for the appellaiit Mr. Amiyakant Tiwad, coiuisel for respondents 1 to 5. ORDBR (ORALt (04.12.2010) Per I.M. OUDDU8I. J 1. This appeal has been ffled by fhe Insuraace Compaay agaiast the impugned award dated 28.04.2007 passed by fhe VII Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (C.G) ia CIafcm Case No.27/2006 awanling Rs.13,28,476/- to fh-e clamiants wifh penal iaterest @ 8% per anniim in case the payment is not made withia two montlis j5x>m fhe date of award, 2. The award has been challenged only on two grounds, The first ground is ia respect of contoributory negUgence aad fhe ofher one is in. respect of quaatuia as fhere is pemiission u/ s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act .^ ^ 3. Brief facts of the case as per fhe version of the claimaats arc that on 30.01.2006 at about 10.30 p.m. deceased Karamjit APPBLLANT The Oriental Insuraace Conipany Ltd. RBSPONDENTS S;mt Maajeet Kaur aad ofhers ^ ...? y. 1 M^ ^ '^ '^3^^; s. Singh was retuming to Bhilai from Tatibandh Raipur by his own Maruti Car bearing Regn.No.C.G.7-ZD/7759. At that time when he reached near Khanm River one Truck beadng Regn.No.W.B./23/8474 which was being driven by respondent no.6 i.e., Bholarani Verma ia a rash aad negligent inaaner, dashed fhe car, as a rcsult of which, Karamjit Siagh sustamed grievous iajuries aad his car was also damaged. When he was brought to Rama Krishna Mission Hospital at Raipur for treatment, he was declared dead. The deceased was aged about 38 years. He was workmg in Bhilai Steel Plant aad was earoictg Rs.14,000/- per monfh. The claimant beiag dependents of fhe deceased, filed claini petition claimiag to fhe tune ofRs.78,47,824/-. The leanied Clauns Tnbiuial has held fhat fhe ofifendiag Tnick was involved ia the accident ia which Karamjit Siagh has died due to fhe iajuries sustaiaed by him in fhe said accident aad flie driver of ffcie Truck naxnely Bhola Rain Verma was driviag the vehicle ia rash and negUgent miaaner. It has further held fhat fhere was no breach of conditions of the iasuraace poUcy and the accident was not the result ofnegUgence ofbofh fhe drivers. It appears fhat siace the deceased has died on 30.01.2006, fhe learaed Clauns Tnbunal has taken fhe monthly income ofthe deceased as Rs. 10.242/- on the basis ofsalaiy sMp for fhe inontti of Jaauary, 2006 aad thus fhe aanual incoiae was assesse^ as Rs.1,22,904/- (Rs. 10,242 x 12). After adoptuig inultiplier 16, fhe total iaconie caine to Rs.19,66,464/-. The Tnbunal has deducted one-fhird ;i -^^h ii%.'~"LJ. ^., ^y",. 11^ (l/3rd) towards personal expenses fhat is Rs.6,55,488/-, and fhus fhe total loss of dependency was worked out to Rs,13,10,976/-. Besides this, the Tribiuial has also graated Rs.2000/- for fiiaeral expenses, Rs.5000/- for loss of consortium to fhe wife, Rs.4000/- towanls loss of love aad aflFection for respondents 2 & 3 who are fhe iniaor children axid Rs.4000/- for loss of love aad affection in respect of fafher aad mofher offhe deceajsed aad Rs.2,500/- for loss of estate. As such after addiag Rs. 17,500 /- under oftier heads, fhe Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.13,28,476/-. 6. We have heard learaed counsel for fhe parties at lengfh aiid have also gone through fhe recordsofthe Tribunal. 7« Witii regard to the first contention raised by fhe leanied counsel for fhe appellant i.e., contdbutoiy negligeace, fhere is no evidence ia that regard. The evidence on rccoid shows that on fhe fateful day the deceased was driviag his car aad there was a bridge and when fhe offendiag Truck was coming finom opposite direction he stopped his vehicle on fhe left side, but the Truck driver was drivmg fhe Truck at raadom aad coUided wifh the Maruti Car, as a result of which fhe deceased got serious injuries aad immediately when he was brought to Ramakdshna Mission Hospital, Raipur, where he was declared dead. Therefore, fhis contention is not sustainable in the absence ofevidence on \A record. ^ 8. Wifh regard to fhe quantum, learaed counsel for the appeUaat subinifs that accordiag to pay slip obtaiaed for fhe 1)^ monfh ofJaauary, 2006 fhere were some deductibns and tihie net salary was shown as Rs.3,600/- whereas fhe Tribiuial has wrongly tsLken the gross salary of fhe deceased at Rs,10,242/-. A perusal of the said salary slip shows fhat there were sonie regular deductions towards Contdbutoiy Provident Fund, insurao.ee, Cooperative, fe^tival advance, but as the deceased was paying fhe same froin his salary, it caanot be said that fhe sanie cannot be included ia his income. There were also deductions towards recovexy ofloaa advaaced fi^om C.P.F., Cooperative Society, festival advance etc., which were also being repaid &OISL his monfhfy salaiy, fherefore recoveiy of fhose advaaces/loaas was niade froni his salaiy aad it cannot be said fh.at fhe saine were not beiag paid from his income, Further, the said sUp ateo shows fhat fhere was in.coiae tax deduction at source that is Rs.719/-, fherefore, fhis aDioiuit is liable to be deducted from fhe gross iacome of the deceased. Hence, fhe iacoine of the deceased would be Rs. 10,242 minus Rs.719/- which comes to Rs.9,523/- per monfh. Thercfore, ifwe multiply this monfhly income by 12, fhe annual income comes to Rs.144,276/-. The deceased was in fhe age group of 36 to 40 years, therefore, acconliag to the multipUer scale given ia Scirla Vemw. (Smt.) emd others -ws- Dethi Transpert Corporatlon <uid cawther (2009) 6 SCC 121 vide para 40, the multiplier would be 15 and fhus after applyiag fhe xnultipUer 15 to fhe niultipUcaad Le. Rs. 1,14,276/-, the total iacome comes to Rs. 17,14.140/-. Furfher, regardiag personal aad Uviag expenses, Hon^ble fhe Apex Cozirt in the said case has laid ^ ll ^- down the principles ia Para 30 fhat one-fourth (l/4th) is to be deducted where the number ofdependent famUy members is 4 to 6, In fhe instaiit case, the niunber of dependent family ineiabers is 5, fherefore, l/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenses of fhie deceased which conies to Rs.4,28,535/-. After deductmg this amount, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.12,85,605/-. Besides this, if we graat Rs.10,000/- for loss of consordum to the wife; Rs. 5000/- for loss of love aiid affection to ofher four claimaats that is a total Rs. Rs.20,000/-, Rs. 5000/- for loss of estate aad Rs. 5000/- for fiuneral expenses, the total amount under these heads coxnes to Rs.40^000/-. Ifwe add this aaiount, the total compensation comes to Rs. 13,25,605/- which in our opuuon is almost near to the award ofTribunal that is Rs.13,28,476/-. 9. The learaed Tribunal has not considered fhe fiitiire prospects of fhe iacoxne, Had the deceased been aMve, he would have been entiUed to get fhe enhaaced pay-scale wifh eflTect from 01,01.2006. Therefore, cross objections have been filed by the clamiaats seekiag enhacicement of fb.e award. However, as fhe compensation worked out by us hereiaabove i.e., Rs.13,25,605/- is almost near to fhe amount awarded by the Tribunal, we are not mcUned to enhaace the award any further. Therefore, ftie awaxd of the Tribunal i.e., Rs.13,28,476/- is maintained. Besides this we have not cOnsidered fhe future prospects. The Tribunal has also committed error ia awardmg penal interest @ 8% per annum after ftie stipulated period, which is not proper. Therefore, we direct that the amount under award shatl ^g cany iaterest @ 6% per anniim fhrough-out firoin fhe date of claim petition tUl its realization. 10. In fhe result, appeal is allowed m part. The impugned award dated 28.4.2007 is modified to the above extent. Accordiagly, the cross objections also staad disposed of. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Rao