r"'^^^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHRA.TTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^a. M.A.(C) No^ ^ 'OF 2009 (APPEAL VALUED AT Rs 4,87.500 /-) DlVJSJOII BSfSCh APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988. <1^ /.. APPELANT (NON- APPLICANT N0.1) ...A^ ^.-^s^ e^-""" RESPONDENTS fAPPLICANT N0.li National Insurance Company Liinited, Branch Office- Pipari,Post-Turra, Distt.- Sonbhadra (UP), Through: Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, B-l Taha Complex, Ring Road-2,Priyadarshini Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS ^ Sahotar Patel, Wd/o-Rajbali ^ Patel, aged-39 years, (APPLICANT N0.2) ^ Manjoosa Patel, D/O-Late ^ Rajbali Patel, Aged-12 years, (APPLICANT N0.3) :3. Sarita Patel, D/O-Late Rajbali \ Patel, aged 14years, (APPLICANT N0.4) ;4. Punita Patel, D/O-Late Rajbali ^ Patel , aged 16 years, Respondent no. 2 to 4 are minor, through their mother Sahotar Patel(Respondent no. 1) Respondent no. Ito 4 are R/0- Village-Dhondha, Tahsil- Pratappur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) (APPLICANT N0.5) (APPLICANT N0.6) ;5. Sunita, D/0- Late Rajbali Patel, W/O-AnU Patel, aged about-18 years, R/0 - VUlage-Govindpur, Tah. Pratappur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) k6- Anita ,D/0 - Late Rajbali Patel, W/0 - Dhanesh Patel, R/0 - viUage-Jaimohra, Tah. Mirjapur (U.P.) (APPLICANT N0.7) :7. <' Kavita Patel, D/0- Late RajbaU Patel, Wd/0- Late Sumant Patel, R/0 - ViUage Dhonda, Tah. Pratappur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) (NON-APPLICANT No-2) :8. (NON-APPLICANT NO.-3) :9. ^ Smt. Pushpa Devi, W/0- Sitaram Chaudhary, R/0 - Ring Road, Mukam P.0.- Namnakala, Ambikapur(CG). (Owner of Vehicle) Aiairika, S/0- Baliram Harijan, aged about-30 years, R/0- Kunbadih, P,0.- Myorpur, Distt, Sonbhadra, (U.P.) (Driver) © >L- |K-^ "% ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DB: HON*BLE I.M. QUDDUSI fis HON*BLB PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ, M.A.(Cl No. 920 OF 2009 APPELLANT National Insuraace ComLpany Lmiited Vs. MISCELLANEOUS APPBAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.1988 APPBARAJffCE Mr. Dashrafh Gupta, counsel for fh.e appeUaat. Mr. T, R. Chandrakar, counsel for respondents 8 & 9. ORDBR (ORALl (12.01.2011) Per I.M. OUDDUSI. J, 1. This appeal has been filed by the Insuraiice Coxnpaay agauist the award dated 17.09.2008 passed by the Addl. Motor Accident Clauns Tribunal (F.T.C), Pratappur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G) in Claim Case No.71/2007 awarding Rs.4,87,500/- with iaterest @ 7.5 per aiinum. In case the amount is not paid wifhm 3 monfhs, the said award shall carry penal interest @ 9% per aa.nuni. 2. Brief facts of the case as per the version of tiie claimaats are that on 20.11.2007 at about 5.30 p.m., deceased Rajbali Patel was returaiag on his cycle to his village Ghongha after purchasuig vegetables at Rewati Bazar. Ou the way^ one Truck beanng Regn,No.C.G.15-A/5465 which was beiag driven by rcspondent no.9 in rash and negUgent niaaner dashed fhe cycle of Rajabali, as a result of which, he fell RBSPONDBNTS Sint. Sahotar Patel aad others down aiid, he died on fhe spot on account of head iajuiy sustaiaed by hun in. the said accident. The deceased was a wholesale vegetable vendor aad was eamiag Rs.9000/- per mionfh. The claiiaao.ts beiag legal representatives of the deceased have raade claiin to fhe tune ofRs.l2,52,000/-on vanous heads, 3. The leanied claims Tribunal held fhat tlie olfendiag vehicle was iavolved ia fhe accident in which fhe deceased has died; fhe deceased was iu the age group of 46 - 50 years and at fhe thne of accident the offendiag Truck was iasured with fhe appellant 4. Though fhe iacoine offhe deceased as a vegetable seUer was nientioned as Rs.9000/- per inonfh but it is not proved on evidence adduced on record. Therefore, tlie learaed Tribunal has treated the nionthly iacoiae as only 50% of fhe alleged mcome which comes to Rs.4500/- aad thus calculated the aiinual mcome as Rs.54,000/- (Rs,4500 x 12) Learaed counsel for the appeUaat contends that the inonthly uicomLe should have been Rs.3000/-. We do not agree wifh fhe said contention as the vegetable seller who sells fhe vegetables for fhe whole day, tlierefore, fhe iacome taken by the Tribunal as Rs.4500/- caanot be said to be excessive aad unreasonable. 5. The Tribunal has deducted l/3rd towards personal and Mvrng expenses aad fhus the loss of dependency has been calculated as Rs.3000/- per month aad Rs.36,000/-per aanum. However, ia Sarla Verma (Smt.) cmd others -vs' Delhi Transport CorporaUon and another (2009) 6 SCC @ 121 vide pai'a 30 it has been laid down by Honlble flie Supreine Court fhat where fhe deceased was raarded, fhe deduction towards personal and Uviag expenses of fhe deceased, should be one-fhird (l/3rd) where fhe nuinber of dependent famUy ineinbers is 2 to 3, one fourth (1/4) where the xiumber dependeixt family members is 4 to 6, aad one-fil'tli (l/5th) where fhe nunxber of dependent famUy nieinbers exceeds six, In fhe iastaat case flie nuxnber of clamiaats are 7, out of fhein 3 are niarried daughters aad one of theni i.e., Respondent no.7 is widow. Even tf fhe widow is not counted as dependent, fhe niunber of dependaats conies to 4. Therefore, fhe stao^dard deduction would be 1/4th. But the Tribunal has deducted l/3id which is agaiast fhe decision of the Hon^ble Supreine Court, Therefore, if we deduct l/4th from Rs,54,000/- towards personal expenses fhe axinual loss of dependency would come to Rs.40,500/- (Rs.54,000 - 13,500). The learaed claims Tribunal held fhat fhe deceased was ia fhe age group of 46 - 50 years, Therefore, looking to fhe age of the deceased, tf we adopt the niultipUer 13 accordiag to the raultiplier scale given ia the table vide Para 40 of tfie Sarla Verma's Case (Supra), fhe total loss of dependency would come to Rs.5,26,500/- (Rs.40,500 x 13)). Besides this, for loss of consortium to fhe wife aad loss of love aad affection to fhe children, they are Uable to be granted Rs.5,000/- (to fhe wi£e) aad Rs.5000/- each to respondents 2 to 4 (Total Rs.15,000/-) and thus it would come to Rs.20,000/- for 4 claimants. In addition, tf we graat Rs.5000/- for loss of estate aad Rs.5000/- fiineral expenses, fhe total would come 1 ^'^^"r^:^ ^^ to Rs.30,000/- mider the other heads. If we add Rs.30,000/- to fhe total loss of dependency fhat is Rs.5,26,500/- fhe total compensation comes to Rs.5,56,500/- which fhe claimants would be entitled to receive froni fhe appeUaat, but fhe Tribunal has only graated Rs.4,87,500/- Therefore, we are of fhe opiaion that fhere is no scope to iaterfere in. ftiis appeal. 06- Further, fhe Tribunal has awarded penal iaterest @ 9% per annuin tftih.e aaiount under award is not paid wifhia 3 days, which is not proper. Therefore, we direct that the award of Tribunal shall cany interest @ 7.5% per aanum fhrough out from fhe date of filing of the claim appUcation tiU fhe payiaent is inade. 07. In fhe result, fhe appeal is aUowed ia part. The impugned award dated 17.09.2008 is modified to the above extent. The rest of the conditions aad fhe fuiduigs of fhe Tribunal shall reniain ta tact. No order as to cost. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge fetC