'^^ Bu IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR MISC.APPEAL FC1 N0. 74 /2011 MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHLCLES ACT, 1988 APPELLANT JNSURER p^d.---^',:o\-< Rg^PQNDENTS y6LAIMANTS OWNER ^'Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through : its Legal Officer, 301, 302 ^orporate House 169 RNT ' MarJ^f, Opposite Jhabua Tower, IndSre (M.P.) VERSUS Mayaram S/o Roopram Patel, aged about 50 years, 2<- Brinda Bai W/o Mayaram Patel, aged about 40 years, both R/o village Pisid, Police Station 85 Tahsil - Kasdol, District - Raipur ,(C.G.) (name of village wrongly mentioned as Pisil) ^.---Ramayan Patel S/o Gangaram Patel, aged about 21 years, R/o village Pisid, Police Station 8s Tahsil - Kasdol, District - Raipur (C.G.) Pitambar S/o Ramlal Patel, aged about not known to the appellant, R/o village Pisid, Police Station 8s Tahsil - Kasdol, District - Raipur (C.G.) APPEAL VALUED AT RS. 3,35,000/- COURT FEE Rs. 15/^ ;&5 I. i_>.=—-)I-.*<- €*i-—:is nOn 5i©^nri —I>--I— - AA - *- -.- ^? ;¥a5TaVQ, -»j<j. [Appeal U/s 173 ef the motor vehicias Act, 1988] Reiiance £?eneral Insurance C'omoany L.Td. v's " Mayaram and others Present; - Shri Saurabh Sharma. counsei tor 'fne aoDeilnnt. Shri 6autam Khetrapai, counsei for respondents 1 cnc 2. Shri Rotvindrs AgrawGi, coun:^! fo" "cspondsnt No-4, ^nd . j? £4-.-. . ^s/^t ^ ^ d:~ m may, 'e.u's.t.} 1. I he aoDeilcnt- Reiiance 6eneral Insurance C'omDany Ltd., has tiled this OOQSO.I under Section 173 of the AAo+or Vehicies Act, 1988 itor- short 'the Ac-t, 1988') agatnst the award dated 29.10.2010 passed by t'he Isarne-d 2 AddltlonQl AAotor .4ccldsnt ClQlms TribiJHQl. BGJodQ Bctzo.r District Raipur (C&) Sfor short 'the C'iaims Iribunal') in C'laim Case No.74/2009 aiiowinq the claiin application of the claimants, awardinq a sum of Rs.3,35.000 and fasteninq iiability on the aoDeilant-owner' to satistv the award. 2. Tne aDOeiiant-lnsurance Cornoany hcss filed this appesi chailenqinq the fluantum and in thls reqard perrrussion under Section 1/0 ot the Act, 19538 has been graited to the ccpeliant-lnsurance C'ompany. are that on 5/03/08 at about 6.00 p.m... the was ooina to AAahanadi on the Tractor -&B-7792 to diq-out scaid for aQriculture Briet tacts of the s deceased-Amsrnath •reaister'ed as C-.6J 3, n. ...-e; T"^\'. y^ '^ ^ 3%1 purooses. When the deceased was trvinq to uniock the bodv of traiier, respondent No.3 neqiiqentiy started.the tractor as a result frontDart of troiley hit on the head of the deceased and he became unconscious. i-1e was taken to 6overnment HosDital. Kasdo! where he died while undergoinq trectment. Report of the incident was lodqed in the Police Station Kasdoi. Ihe claimants, who are parents of the deceased. had filed ciasm aDDlication under Sectiori 166 of •t+ie Act. 1988 seekinq cornDensation to the tune of-«s.l5,55,OOU/- on the ground that they were dependent on tlie deceased, who was sole earninq member in the family, and ciue to his death, they have suffered ioss of incowe. i CSaims ! ribuna! havinq reqard to the tccts situation and the on record 1-ion of Rs.3,35,000/- C'omDany is !labie to that the ctaimants are entitied tor various heads and the apDel the amount of comoensation to 5. We have heard iearned counsel tor the parties. We have De"used recor'd of the Ciaims Tribunal as also the impugned award. 6. ln the oresent case the claimants are unfortunate parents ot deceased, who was a boichelor. The Claims Tribunal to calcuiate ioss of dependency has assessed rnonthly income of the deceased at Ds.2,5QO-.'' i-e. Rs.30,000/- p.o.., de.d.ucted l/S''" from it towards personal & iiyinq exDenditure ot the deceased and thereatter apDiied muttiolier ot 16 in it. the Claims I ribuna! has committed a mistake in monthly income ot the deceased at Rs.^SUO/-, as the ixed tor the iabourer couid not have been reduced. •ion, the Claims Tribunai ought to have assessed th% deceased on the basis of notlonal income Drsscribed in /. But we tee! tl assessinq the tninimum waqe t and ;n such a si incoffie ot the ..^ the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Aftotor Vehicies Act. 1988 i.e. Rs.36,000/- D.a. Further, as per jud'ginent of the Hon'ble Suoreme Court in the matter SaHa Verma (Smt.) and ol'hers -ys- Delhl Transporf Cor'pwation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 1Z1 the Claims I ribunal shou!d have deducted 507o towards personai and iivinq exDenditure ot the deceased trom his income as it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to SDend^more on him asself-maintenance. jdent.average ribuna! should ion'ble Suoreme i-'urther, considerinq the aae of the parents ot which was 50 & 40 years resDectiveiy at the time of of which wouid come more than 45 years. the Clcims have aoolied the multiolier' of 14, as heid by the Hon' C'ourt in the matter ot Sarla Vertr.c's case (suDni). Thus, we assess the monthiy income of the deceased ct Rs.3.000/- (Rs.36,000/- p.a.) and after deducting 50% from the annuc! income of the dececsed and aDpiying muitiDtier of 14 to it. the total loss of deDendency wouid come to Rs.2,52.000/- (50% of 36000 x 14). Besides this, the cfaimants are also entitied for Rs.10,000/- each towards loss of love S. affectlon, Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses and fts.5.000/- for ioss of estate. Thus. the total amount under other heads comes to Rs.30,000/-. Accordingiy, the tota! omount of comDensat'on tor which the claimants would be entit!ed comes to Rs.2,8ii,UUO/- and in our opinion, the compensation awarded by the ribunai is excessiye. In the resutt, the appeai is allowed in part and the impuqned award is modified to the extent that the claimants-respondent Nos.l & 2 are entitied to get Rs.2,82,000/- as compensation in piace of fts.3,35,000/- as awarded by fhe Claims Tribuna! vide impugned award. 10. Thev shali also be entitled for interest @ 6% o.a. on the awarded amount from the date of filinQ of aDDlicntion till actual Dayment is "made. Out of the awarded comDensation. Rs.2,50,000/- shall be deposited ;n a tixed deposit scheme ot any nationaiized bank in the Joint no.me of the claimants (on the basis of either of sur'/ivor) for a Deriod ot six v'ears and remaininq amount shall be pald in cash to the ctaimants. The amount already deDosited or paid to the claimants shali be adjusted towards the amotfnt of comDensation. i he apDeal is accordinqiy aUowed in Dart. No orders as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ueepf!