THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 Tribunal , Mungeli , \/ ? W IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR C.G. wt) M.ACNo‘ OF 2006 APPEAL VALUED AT Rs.5 84 914/. W WM APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF / Being aggrieved by the award dated 12/05/06, passed by “additional Motor Accident Claims District—Bilaspur '(CG) APPELANT : / The New India V’(NCN— APPLICANT N03) Assurance Company Limited, Raj endra Nagar Chowk, Bilaspur (CG) , Through: Its-Divisional Manager, Divisional— Office, Ilnd floor, Shriram Trades center, opposite/Raj iv Plaza, Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, Distt.* Bilaspur (C.G.. ) ’. VERSUS RESPONDENTS :1. Narendra Kumar S/O ' PLICANT / Shri Ram Kri shna Soni, aged —46 years, Occupation— Supervisor, R/O— Mahamaya Ward, Sonarpara, Mungel i , ‘Tah. & P.S.Mungeli, Distt . —Bilaspur (CG) Bhi khamlal S/O_ W (@ON-APPLICANT No.1) Bhairam Satnami , aged— 33~year, R/O-— Navagaon (Ghuthera) , i i P . S . &Tahsil~Mungeli , Distt . ~Bilaspur (CG) . (Driver of Truck no . CG 3 I, O7-C/ 022 6) ( ‘i (NGN-APPLICANT :3. Vinay Kumar, S/O— N02) V Satyanarayan Bhutadah Owner of Truck no . CG O7—C/ 0226, through- Rishabh Agency, Ganj para, Durg (CGxx HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. (C) No. 200 of 2006 The New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Appellant Respondents Narendra Kumar 85 others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 DB: Hon’ble Shri Justice I. M. Quddusi 85 Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra “9 Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocatefor the respondent No. 1. None for the respondents No. 2 and 3. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 13th day of April, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 12.5.2006, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District - Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 31/2005, awarding a sum of Rs. 5,84,914/— along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, holding the appellant/Insurance Company as liable to 'pay the amount of compensation. é 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the lower Court record as well as the findings given in the impugned award. 3. Brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 4.7.2004 claimant Narendra 'Kumar was going on his motorcycle, bearing registration No. C.G. O4-CA/ 1090, to Karhi colony in order to drop his friend Viiay Nair. At that time near office of the Life Insurance Corporation, Mungeli, non—applicant No.1 (Bhikham Lal) driving the vehicle, bearing registration No. C.G. O7—C/O226, in a rash and negligent manner {1 came from the wrong side and hit the motorcycle. As a result of this accident both the persons i.e. rider Narendra Kumar and pillion rider Vijay Nair received grievous injuries. The right leg of the claimant Narendra Kumar was crushed in the accident. Both the injured filed separate Claim cases bearing Claim Case Nos. \$ 31/2005 (Narendra Kumar Vs. Bhikham Lal 85 others) and 95/2005 (Vijyan Nair Vs. Bhikham Lal 85 others). 4. Learned Claims Tribunal tried;both the claim cases together and passed the common award dated “12.5.2006: 5. In the instant appeal, in Claim Case No. 31/2005, having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record learned Claims Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the claimant sustained 40% permanent disability, thus assessing the monthly income of the claimant as Rs. 5000/— per month, assessed the loss of future income as Rs. 2000/- per month and Rs. 24,QOO/— per year. Taking into account the age of the claimant between 44 to 48 years, applied the multiplier of 17 in accordance with the second schedule of Section l63—A of the Act, 1988 and thus awarded a sum of Rs. 4,08,000/ - towards loss of earning. In addition to that, under the conVentional heads learned Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards physical pain and mental agony, Rs. 5000/— for special diet, Rs. 29,700/— towards conveyance expenses, Rs. 15,000/— towards loss of enjoyment/amenities of the life and Rs. 77,214/— towards medical expenses. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 5,84,914/- has been awarded to the claimant with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of the application i.e. 28.7.2004. g@ 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was not granted to the appellant, therefore, up to the stage of assessing the loss of earning i.e. Rs. 24,000/- per year by the Tribunal, there is no grievance of the appellant, but the multiplier of 17 has wrongly been applied by the Claims Tribunal in awarding the compensation to the claimant/injured. 7. In the case on hand, having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record, accordingsto the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anotherl , referring the decision” in’U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandraz, between the age group of 46 to 50 years the multiplier of 13 would be applicable. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Claims Tribunal should have applied the multiplier of 13, instead of 17, which has been wrongly applied. 8. In View of the above, we apply multiplier of 13 and award a sum of Rs. 3,12,000/— (Rs. 24,000/— X 13) towards loss of earnings, instead of 4,08,000/—. Thus, the compensation under this head is reduced to the extent of Rs. 96,000/- (4,08,000 — 3,12,000). In addition to that the claimant is entitled to a total sum of Rs. 1,76,914/- under other heads, as has been awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the claimant is entitled to a total sum of Rs. 4,88,914/-. ’9. Therefore, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation is reduced to that eXtent of Rs. 4,88,914/—. The claimant would be entitled to get this amount of compensation along with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of 1 (2009)6 scc 121 2 (1996) 4 scc 362 / 4 f) filing of the claim petition till its payment, aé directed by the Tribunal. The rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 10. Accordingly, we allow this appeal in part, reduce the amount of compensation and modif the impugned award dated 12.5.2006 to y the above extent. No order as to costs. (“‘0 Sdl- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- . l Prashant kumar Mlshra Judge Thakhr i