s3R-i ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTCSGARH AT BILASPUR ^^imn MISC. APPEAUC} N0. 32-LJ OF 2011 APPEAL UNDER SECTEONlf73 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 APPEAL VALUED AT RS. 3.43.500/- rRUPEES THREE LACS FORT/ THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED) ONLY ApDellant ,/Non-Applicant No. 3 Respondent No. 1 Applicants/Claimants \ ,.<$•>' A-^' -•'" /•<?/' /\ ^yy ^y/^ ^py^ «^° Resoondent No. 2 Non-Applicant No. 1 Respondent No. 3 Non-Applicant No. 2 National Insurance Co. Ltd. through its bivisional Manager, Bilaspur Branch, Taha Complex, VyaparVihqrRoad, Bilaspur Versus ^f^' Hira Singh, S/o Isate Charan St"n9h aged 49 years/ ' (b) Suruj Kunwar, W/o Hira Singh, ^ aged 45 years (c) Minor Ku. Shanti, D/o Hira Singh, ,^ aged 17 years through natural guardian Hira Singh, S/o Charan Singh aged 49 years/ (All R/o Villgge Vijaynagar, Gevra, Katghora, bistt. Korba (CG) Tulsi Ram Sahu, S/o Sukalu Ram Sahu, aged 38 years, R/o Sindhi Cotony, Bilaspur (C.G.) DRIVER Vasudev Parwani, S/o Late Chelaram Parwani, R/o Sindhi Colony, Bilaspur (C.G.) (Owner of Dayanand Bus) OWNER ^ .^^^^ ^ HIOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT^ILABPU^ M.A. fCl N0. 329 OF 2011 Natioual iusui^iice Co. Ltd. APPBLLANT/ NON-APPLICANT N0.3 RESPONDENTS Versus i Hira. Siagh aad others. APPBAL UNDER SBCTION 173 OF THB MOTOR V^mCLBS ACT. 1988 f Division Beaeh: Hou'ble Sluri I.M. Ouddusi fis Hon'ble Slsri G. Minhaiuddin. JJ. / Presesit: Shri G.V.K. Rao, coiinsel f6r the appeUaat. Shri Abhijit Sarkar, counsel for respondents No. l(a) Shri N,K, Chattenee, couiisel for respondents No. 2&3. OR&L OR&ER - (Passed on 28th day ofJuae, 2011) Per I.M. Oiaddiisi, J. Heaid. 2. This appeal has beeii ffled by the appellaiit/National lusurance Co. Ltd. agaliist tlie ioipugned awai'cl dated 29-10-2010 passed by Additional Motor Accident Ckdms Tabunal, .KatghorsL, Korba (&r short 'the Clakas Tribuna!) ia CMim Case No.06/2009, iii so for as it relates to fhe qiiaiitum pai-t only. •t. 3. The appellaiit/Insuraiice Compaiiy lias got peiiuission under Sectiou 170 oftlie Motor Vehlcles Act, 1988. ^ 4. Brief facts of tiie case accordiiig to claimaiits ai'e fliat deceased was .sou of Clalmants No.l & 2 aiid brather of Clalmeuit No.3. Oii 06-12-2008 at 5.45 P.M., the det-eased Sukhsagai was returnin.g frojuai Madlan to Vijay Nagai by driviiig Motor Cycle bearitig registiatlpii No. C.G. l^/G-6512 along with / liis relatlve. On the way, flie said jiiiotorcycle was dashed by Bus beai'iiig reglstration No. C.G. 12 G/0178 by rash aiid negligeut driviag of the driver of tiie oJ3Feudiag veliicle (Bus) as a ^.^^^y^ ^'^ • § tts.^^ i j 1 ^ -^ result of whlcli the deceased siiccumbed to tlie iiijuries in tlie said accldeut. 5. The claimaiits beiag legal representative of the deceased had fUed a petition under Sectlon 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for sliort 'flie Act, 1988") before tiie Clauas Tribunal clakaiiig total coBipensatlon of Rs.49,12,000/- under various heads for fhe deafli ofdeceased iii tiie said accident 6. The leaiiied Tribuual on a close scriituiy of evidence led, niaterial placed aiid subimssioiis niade by fh.e pailies, has awarded a su£a of Rs.3,43,500/- as coiuipensation aloug wifh iaterest @ 6% per aniium froni ftie date of applieatiou. 7. We have perused fhe A-ecords of tiie Claims Tribtuial as also impugned awaid aad fouiid fliat fhe Clauiis Tribuiial has taken iato conslderatioii the age of tlie deceased instead oftiie age of tiie pai'eiits/claimaats. Lookiag to fhe age of the deceased, flie Tribunal has applied multiplier 18 which is ou higher side. IAI flie iiistaiit case, the pareuts are clauiiants, the age oftiie parents is to be taken liito consideration and iiot fhe deceased, The ages of flie pareiits are 49 aiid 45 years aad tiieir average age cojnes to 47 years. Therefore, they coaie under fhe age group of46 - 50 years. Accorduig to multiplier scale glven by Hon?ble the Apex Coui^t m the matter of Sarla Verfna (Smt.) and others.-vs- Delhi Trcunsport Corporation cind anotfeer reported ui (2009) 6 SCC 1219 tiie multipller of 13 should have been made applicable instead ofmultiplier of 18. Therefore, fhe award linpugned requiies modification. 8. The nioAifhly iiicoiiie offhe deceased has beeii assessed as Rs.3,000/- Le. Rs. 36,000/- per aanum. After deductmg 50% of fhe iiiconie of tiie deceased, flie reinaiader coiiies to Rs, 18,000/-. After applymg multiplier of^l3, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,34,000/- (18,000/- X 13 ==2,34,000/-). Besides this, tiie parents have lost fh.eir youiig boy, fheA^efoA'e, fhey are eiititled to get Rs.10,000/- each for loss of love aiid affectlou, Rs,10,000/- for loss of estate aiid ••\ 'Jf' -^ ^ ..:• ^ Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. Besides tiiis, flie slster oftlie deceased who is claimant No.3 is eutitied to get Rs.5,000/- for loss of love aad affection which ia all coBies to Rs,40,000/- ujiider oflier heads, Therefore, fhe total amount of compensation comes to Rs.2,74,000/- (Rs.2,34,000+40,000/-). Thus, tiie amount awarded by fhe Claims Tribunal Le. Rs.3,43,500/- is rcduced to Rs.2,74,000/- which tlie clakaaiits ai^e entitied to receive as total coiiipensation. However, the Tribuual has iaiposed panel mterest @ 9Q/o per anaum after fhe stipulated period wliich AS not sustauiable aad fherefore, the paael iiiterest iuiposed in paragraph 13 of fhe award is set aside. We direct fhat fhe amount pf awaixl shaU cariy simple iaterest @ 6% per aiinuni through out from ftie date of fillag of fhe clakxi petltiou tUl fhe payBieut is niade. 9. Aecordingly, fhe appeal is aIlowed.iQL pait, The iixipugned award 1s modi6ed iii the above temis. ?^o order as to costs. ^-5L Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Kvr