m^^y^ymmsSK \J\ L.r ^ I.S '-/- IN THE HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^CGJt M.A. fCl N0. \^O /2oo« oiv!sioa Sgnet APPELLANT .c^^..^ ^^ ^^.^.^ :^.€^^--"1" •:'^^'v National Insurance Company, Through: Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Taha Complex, near Priyadarshani Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPQNDENTS ^ ^2. -5 ^ Santosh Kumar Jain, S/o. Late Manakchand Jain, aged about 56 years, Occupation Cloth-Merchant, Smt. Sulochana Devi, W/o. Santosh Kumar Jain, aged about 48 years, Occupation-House wife, Both R/o. Nehru Chowk, Balodabazar, P.S. and Tahsil Balodabazar, District Raipur (C.G.) (CLAIMANTS) Santosh Kumar @ Sanju, S/o. Kedarnath Tiwari, aged about22 years, Occupation-Driver, (DRIVER) Kedarnath, S/o. Gupteshwar Tiwari, aged about 47 years, Occupation-Owner of Vehicle Alto Car NO.J.H.-01/G-9244 Both R/o. Village New A.G. Corporative Colony, House No. 138, Kadru, P.S. Ugargoda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) (OWNER) AWARD AMOUNT VALUATION OF PRESENT APPEAL Rs.8,23,200/- Rs.8,23,200/- 'T '> MISCELLANEOUSAPPEAL U/S. 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLEACT. 1988 HIOH COURT CTP CHKATTI8CyMUI. BIIASPUR DB: Hon'ble I. M. QDDDUCH & Hoa*ble G. MIIIHAJUDOIII.JJ APPBLLANT: RESPOIIDBNTS: M. A (CI Wo. 1640/2008 Natianal Insiaraiice C^xxipaay 4^(,, Ws. Santosh KuxBar J^ha &ofhers MI8C. ATOBAL UBDBR 8BCTIOII 173 OF THE MOTOR W5HICLBSACUT. 1988 Appearance: Mr. Gautam Khetrapal aad Mr. Ratoesh ^Mu, oouasdl for fhe appeUaDit Mr. Pralrash Tiwari, Counsel for respondeiits 1 &2. Per I.M. QVDDiySI. J. ORALORDBR (17.06.2011) It is stated fhat durmg tibie peiidency of Itie appeal, respondent no, 1 has died, (herefore, name of rcspoiideat no, 1 be deleted. This is not objected by learaed counsel for fhe appeUant The name of respondent BO, 1 be deteted fit)m fhe array ofrespondents in the eause tifle. Now respoiadeiit no.2 namefy Smt, Sulochana Devi is fhe sole ctaimant. Siimlarly, name of Cioss-Objector No.l be also deteted as he is the same person. This appeal has been ffled by tlie Ixisiireace Company a^aiast fhe icaipugQed award dated 26.06.2008 pas^^i by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tritouital, Bhatapaia, •y Distt. Raipur (C.G) in Claiin Case No.22/2007 challen^ig fhe quaatum. 3. Brief facts of fhe case as per fhe versioa of claiixsaxits are fhat on 06.02.2005 deceased Nitin Jam aloag-witli otfaers was travelmg ia Marutl Atto bearmg Regn. No.J.H,04- G/9244. On fhe way at about 9.30 p.m., fhe said Gar which was beiag driven by respondent no, 1 in a rasli aiid ne^ligent manner suddenly dashed the staadiag (ruck fi^om behind which was already brake down, as a resixlt of wMch, Nitia Jaia and 3 ofhers died on ftie spot The car driver haa also sustamed serious mjuries. The deceased was aged about 27 years. He was dealiag m clofh laanufacture aad stoek clearance and was eaniing Rs,80CK)/- per moiifh, The parents of fhe dec^sed belng dependents/legal representafhres h^ye flled cfedm petition u/s 166 offhe Motor Vehicles Act claixcimg compensation to tfae tuiie of Rs.39,12,000/- on various heads. 4< The learaed Claims Tribuxral lield that fee oflfending vefaicle was involved ia the accident ia which fhe deceased died aoid tfaere was no brcach of policy conditioas. It has awaided a total compensation ofRs.8,23^200/- which ttie claimants are entifled firom fhe Insurance Company, S. Learaed counsel for the appelteit submits fhat ffae amoiuit ofcompensation awanded by the Tribuxial ia exarbiteat 6. We have heard learaed counsel tor the parties and hav^ oiao perused fhe records ofthe TdbxuLal, _.x.—-—^^ ^^—--.^^ ;I ferflt, I -—y^ ^^<.^ ^^' ^ 7. The Tribiuxal has taken ti^e incom^ of the deceased as Rs.63,600/- oa fhe basis oftibe Income Tax: Retum fiBfid as Ex.P-7. A perusal of Ex.P-7 shows that the deceased ws^ paymig Rs.1720/- as income tax which was Mable to be deducted but it has not been deducted. Therefore, after deducting fhe tax paid^ the aianual iacome eomes to Rs.61,880/-. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3 towards personal aiid liviag expenses wMcli w o.0t coxrect. Stoce the deceased was bachelor, 50% (one hsdf) towards personal expenses is to be deducted j6x>m tfae income. Tlierefere, after deducting one half, fhe annual toss ofdependency comes to Rs.^),940/-. Further the Tribunal has committed nmnlfest error of law io. apptymg higher multipUer of 18 tahdng iato consjkieration fh.e age of tfae bw?helor deceased. It is weU settted law that tihie parente beiog elaimants, the age of the parents is to be teken iato consideratton ta case the deceased was uaimarried. In the iastant case, the ages ofthe parents are 56 and 48 years reapectwety and fbeir avexage age comes to 54, as such fhey come under fhe age g^oup of 51 to 55 years, Accoiidmg to fhe multipUer scale prescribed by Hoh'ble fhe Suprcnie Court io. Sarla V«rma(8mt.) -v»- Dellil T»airport Corporation and othw (3009) 6 8CC 121 vide para 40, multipUer 11 shouM have been made appUcable. Thereforc, on applyiag applier 11, fhe toted loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,40,340/- (30940 x 11). Besides fhis, the sole clafcoiant is also eiititled to get Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and afifection; Rs.10,000/- for loss ofestate and Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses which ta aU comes to Rs.25,000t/- over fhe other heads, Ifwe add .^^•^.^. '"•'^. fhis amoiint, the total amouiit of compensation eon^es to Rs.3,65,340/- which the claimant is entitil^l to rcceiye Itoom the appellant Therefore, fhe awaid of Tribunal ie., Rs.8,23,200/- is liable to be and is hercby reduced to Rs.3,65,340/-. This award shall also carry simple iuteiiest@ 6% per anniim firom the date ofjBImg ofthe claim applicaticm till the payment is made, No amount ofcoiiipensationwoiald be payable to the legal heirs of tihe deceased clauiiaiit/ respoiident no. 1 as his Daine has beeia deleted, 8. In the result, the appeat is allowed ia part. The impu@&ed award dated 26.06.2008 is xnodified to fhe above ©rteatNo order as to costs, Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge f^°<