IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUI (C.G.) t'p- ^ M. A. (Q N0. ^) '7 5 QF2W)8 (D.B.) Divisioo B^ocBi APPELLANT Dev Kumar Kashyap S/o R. P. Kashyap, R/o Yadunanden Nagar Tifra, Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.). (Owner of the vehicle) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : s^" 4.. /' ^•^€ /^^y' ^•^^.^ %::^^-<^ ^' /• Amarnath Yadav S/o Buddhuram Yadav aged about 35 years; (Husband of the deceased) Rara Kuraar Yadav S/o Amarnath Yadav, aged about 15 years; (Son of the deceased) Rameshwar Yadav S/o Amarnath Yadav aged about 11 years; (Son of the deceased) Ku. Rameshwari D/o Araarnath Yadav aged about 07 years; (Daughter of the deceased) The respondent No.2 to 4 are Minors through their natural guardian father Amarnath Yadav. All resident of Village Risda, Post Risda, Police Station Masturi, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.). Manik Prasad Upadhyap S/o B. P. Upadhyay, aged about 41 years, R/o Near C.S.E.B. Office, Tifra, Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.). (Driver of the vehicle) (£ 6. Bajaj Alliances General Insurance Company Limited, through Prescribed Officer, Branch Raipur, Chouhan Complex, In front ofRajkumar College, Near L.M.L. Show Room, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.). (Insurer of questioned vehicle) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 J^ll^ HIQH COVRT @P CHHAmBGARH. BILAWUR DB: Hon»bleL M. QUDDUW & Hott*bte G. MUIHAJWMHH, JJ APPBLLANT: RB8POMD15NTS: M.AICt NQ.77S/2008 Dev Kumar Kashyap Vs. Ajnaraafh Yadav & ofhers l' / . MISC. APPBAL UIIDBR SBCTIOir 173 OP THB MOTOR VBHICLBSACT. 1988 Appearance: Mr, MaJay Bl^aduri, coixnsel for tlie appellaat Mr, Sachin Siagh Raiput, Counsel for rcspondettt no,6. Per I.M. QVDDVai. J. ORALORDBR (20.06.2011) 1. This appeal Iias beeia filed by Itie owner against the impugaed awaxd dated 31.03,2008 passed by II AddL Motor Accideiit Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C<G) ia CIaiin Case No,82/2006 so far as it rclates to fasteniag Mability on llie appellaat as well as quaatum. 2. Brief^faqts of ffae case as per the version of claimants are tfaat on 23.0^006 deceased Rajmati Yadav had gone to work ia the Tractei^Tro)ley bearmg Regn.No.C.G.lO-ZG/ 2534. At about 2.30 p.m, due to rash and negligent dri\dfag of nespondent no.5, Rajmati fefi down and died on the spot At fhe tiiae of accideat she was aged about 30 years. She was working as labour aad was eamiag Rs.100/- per day and Rs.3000/- per month. The claimants being &A.»»-«OT73"tw.'!S2egfi5 3 ^. /^ . ^^^ dependents/Iegal representatives have ffled claim petition u/s 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act for fhe siwaxd of total compeasation ofRs.6,47,000/- onvarious heads. 3. The leamed CIaims Tribunal heM that due to rasfa aad negHgent driviag of Tractoc-TroUey by its driver respondent no.5, Rajmati fell down aad died on fhe spot aad the msurance offhe vehicle was made after fhe mcidenfc Haviag thus held, it has awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,35,000/- wifh sioaple iatercst @ 6% per aanum which fhe claimants are entifled to receive from fhe owner, 4. We have heard learaed counsel for (he parties aad have also perused the rccords offhe TribuiiaL 5. Learaed couiisel for the appeflant has raised the contentioa that fhe iasurance policy was made on the same day aaid tfae accident has taken place afifcer tfae msurance was made, but the time of insiurance has been shown as 6.00 p.m, axid fhe tune aad date of fhe accident has been shown as 5,56 p,ia, on fhe same date i.e. 23rd Feb. 2006. 6, Adxmttedly, the distance between fhe ojffice of the ixisurance agent who issued fhe cover note and ffae place ofaccident is about 4 Kflometers aad fhercforc for a Tractor it was not possible to get the iasiirance smd thereafter reach at fhe place of accident wifhin a few minutes, Thercfore, it canaot be said that the iasurance cover note was issued at the time mentioned by the agent Aay how, fhe appeUant could not get success to prove that tfae msurance poUcy was xaade beforc fhe fime ofaccident Therefore^ fhe Claims Tribunal ^o s ^^^^^^ ^' :^^a%^^ 3 ,,J^.i^ ^"^^ '^ /i' .L. 'l ii^^^II^^. ty ':€i»s'tI ^ 't^ -w '. ^ ^./' .^-<?"-1 has r^htty exonerated the msuran.ee Compaay fiom the liabiUty to pay compensation. ?• Leamed counsel for fhe appeUaat has also chaUenged fhe quantum fixed by the Claims Tribunal ia the award. The deceased was a lady aged about 30 y^trs. She is suruwed by her husband aged about 35 years and 3 minor ctdldren aged about 7 years, 11 years and 15 years. Thereforc, we do ixot fhiak fhat fhe deceased was warkmg fhrough out the month and as such for the sake of convenience^ it is presuined fhat fhe average workiag days of fhe deceased as labour were 20 days ia a calendar month, The Tnbiinal has assessed the labour charges as Rs.80/- per day which aaeeds no mterference. On multipljbation, the monfhly iacome comes to Rs.1600/- (Rs.80 per day x 20 days) and the annual iacome comes to Rs.19,200/- (1600 x 12). After deducting l/3rd towadds personal expenses, fhe remamder/aiHiual loss of dependency comes to Rs,12,800/-. The Tribuiial has appMed multipUer 18 which is on higher side. The deceased was aged about 30 years and she eomes ia ibe age gionp of 26 - 30 years. Accoidiag to the miiltiplier scate prescribed by Hon^ble fhe Supreme Court m Sayla Verma (8nsL) -vw- DeUii Transiwrt Corporation emd emother reported in. (2009) 6 8CC 121 ^Pttra 4fl(|, multipUer 17 would be applicable, Thereforc, on applyiag multiplier 17, fhe total loss ofdependency comes to Rs.2,17,600/- (Rs.12,800 x 17). The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.4000/-towaids funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- for loss oflove aad affection towaids 3 Dtinor childrcu and Rs.5000/- for loss ofestate but has not awarded aoiy sum for loss of coasortium to fhe husband. r ^ ;?. '^-"^ ^ 8. Thereforc on awaidmg Rs.5000/- for loss of consortium it comes to Rs.29,000/- over the other heads. Ifwe add thte ainount towards total loss of dependency, fhe total amouat of compensation comes to Rs.2,46,600/- (217600 + 29000) which fhe claimaats are entitled to receive firom the appeUant. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,35,000/- on aU counts which is oa higher side aad the same is reduced to Rs.2,46,600/-. This award shafl also carry simple interest@ 6% per aimiim fix)m the date filmg of fhe claioi petitlon tiU fhe payment is made. In the result, the appeal is aflowed in. part. Tbe nnpugQed award dated 31.03.2008 is modified in the abcwe tenas. No order as to costs, Rao Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge