,/^ y -—-• - - "., iFORE THE HON'BLE ?) ssaggg i^giii COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR M.A.fQNO. 3.6.^ /2008 APPELLANT .A .C^AIMANT ^..' ~0^- ..-••IA'-^ .'-\-i 1: ' ' v^, ^y:<^ V^'A..--"" 'I^-"" RESPONDENT N0.1 DEFENDANTNO.l Smt. Urm.Ua Widow of Late Chela Ram, aged about 20 years, caste - Gond, resident of viUage Bhusha, Tahsil Jaijaipur, Distt. Shahdol (MP) VERSUS 1. RESPONDENT N0.2 DEFENDANT N0.2 52- The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch OfGce, Guru Nanak Chowk, Burhar Road, Shahdol Distt. Shahdol (MP) (Insurer of ofEending vehicle) Kuwer Singh son of Bablu Singh, aged about 50 years, caste Gond, Resident of ViUage Bhusha, TahsU Jaitpur, distt. Shahdol (MP) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION F73 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 HIQK COURT CF CHHATri8QAS.H AT BILASPCR APPELLAST/ CLAIBSAKT M.A. (Ct HO. 363 OF 2008 Siut. Ui-mila Versus RESPONDENTS The Bi-anch Mauager, Uuited India Insuraace Company Ltd. aud anotiicr, x APPEAL UNDBR SBCTiOK 173 OF THB BSOTOR VBKICLBS ACT. 1S88 Single Bench: Kon'ble Shri G. Baiahajudditt, J. Present: Shri Rataesh Kuiiiar Agrawal, counsel for the appellaiit. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate wifbL Ms. Sareena Khaa, counscl for rospondcnt No. 1. None tbr respondent No.2. OR&L GRDSR (Passed on 09th day ofDecember, 2011) This appeal has been filed uiider Sectioa 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for shoi-t 'the Acf) agaiust ftie kupugued award dated 28-11- 2007 passed by the Fu'st Addltioual Motor Ac-cideat ClaijDas Tribunal, Matiejadragarh, District Korea (for short fhe Clainis Tribiuial) 111 Claim Case No.33/2006 by the appeBant/claimant for eiijiaaceiueut of coiapeiisauon. 2. Brlef facts of the case as projected by the cteiniant are fhat the dcceased - Chelarani was husbaad of tlie claimant. On 07-12-2005 Chelaraiu was going frojn Dongiitola to vfllage Chanti by drlvlQg Tractor beari&g 1'egistration No. M.P. 18-H/3557 owned byrespondent No.2. Ou the-way, while crossuig Bauas river, the sakl tractor had overturned, by whlch Chelarani was crushed under the Tractor, as a result ofwhich he dled ou tuc spot. At tbe time of accideut, fh.e dece^ed Chelaram was earning Rs.3,000/- by working as driver aad Rs.2,000/- fhrough agricultural works. 3. The appellant/clauuaat beiug legal heit' of fhe deceased filed a claini petition iinder Section 166 of the Act before flie Claiius Tribuaal clairning coinpensation ofRs.22,40,000/- on acc-ount ofuntuuely deafh of tbe deceased Clielat'am. iu a jnotof accldent. 4. ' Learned Claitus Tribunal after giving opportuulty ofheaxiug to the parties, has awarded a siiui of Rs.92,000/'- along with uiterest @ 9% per anniim from the date ofapplication tBl its paymea.t, fasteaing fhe Uabfllly upon fhe respondents joiufty aad severatty. 5. I have heai-d learued couu.sel for the parties aud perused fhe record of the Claicas Tribunal as also fhe impugaed award. G. Learned counsel for the appellaut/claun.aat has c-oatended that the ainount of coiapensatiou awaxded by tbe Clauns Tribuaal is shockiagly on lower side which deserves to be substaiitiaUy enhauced. 7. On fhe other haud, learjied Seuior Advocate appearing for respondeut No.l/Insuauce Company has supported fhe Impugned award terming fhe sauie to be quite just aud proper iu the totality offacts and circurustauces offhecase. 8. The Claims Tribuual by lakmg uotioual lacoiue of the deceased Chelaram as Rs.15,000/- and after dcductiag l/3!'d ie. Rs. 5,OQO/- towards hls persoual and Uving expeuses, has assessed the aiuriial loss of claimant's dependency as Rs.10,000/-. The Claims Tribunal has applled tbe niultiplier of 17, as the age of the deceased was 28 years, as per postmorteui report Ex. P-5 and on that basis fhe total loss of dependejttcy has been calculated as Rs. 10,000 X 17 ==1,70,000/-. The Claims Tribuiial after deducting 50% ofRs. 1,70,000/- awardcd a sum ofRs. 85,000/- as coiapensation because it has cojme in evideuce of Suresh (AW-2) that the deceased was driving fhe tractor in a narwvr place ia a rash aud negl^ent manner due which the tractor had becoDie uncontrollcd 1'esultmg iuto deafh ofthe deceased. The Claims Tribunal has also grauted Rs.2,000/- towards funei'al expeuses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortiuiu. The approach of the Tribunal in deductuag 50% of aniouut of compensatiou cannot be said to be faulty. TIie ciaim petition was filed under Section 166 of fhe Act, 1988 but for coinputiag the coiiipensation tbe Tnbunal had adopted 2ad Schedule u/'s 163-A ofthe Act, wfaich in my considered oplnion is not coriTeot. The incicleut is ofthe year 2005 aud as such it can be safely assiuaed fhat the deceased as an uuskflled labour jaust be earning at least Rs.2500/- per monfh i.e. Rs.30,000/- per nnmim for fhe survival of himself aud hls wlfe/claimant Aceordiiigty, I le-coiiipiite fhe coiupensatioa by taklug iato coasideratiou tbe incoiue of fhe deceased as Rs.30,000/- per anmim. 9. As there was only one dependent Le. wife upou tfae deceased, therefcre, lt would be appropriate to deduct 50% of amount of ^'-^ . 'T ^!'Ss-fSSSSs'. S '"A^N^^^ K •"SSKS^----^ ^! •& ^ y ^ '^:'??;^;^' Rs. 30.000/- towards personal aud livlug expenses of tfae deceased aud nemaining 50% ie. Rs.15,000/- js worked out as claimaat's annual loss ofdependency. As per postmortem report Ex. P-5, age ofthe deceased at the time of accident was 28 years, therefore, la view of tbe law laid down by the Supreme Court iu fhe case of Sarla Verma. /SKB^ mid others vs. SeUil 3'raBsporfc CorporaSSon. and Anotfaer, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104, the m.ultiplier of 17 is appropriate. By inultiplying ttie aanual loss of dependency of Rs.15,000/- with the multipUer of 17, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.2,55,000/-. Ut additiou to ttus, fhe claimant is farfher entitled for Rs.20,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- each uader the heads ofloss ofestate and loss of c-onsortiuui) aad Rs. 5,000/- towai-ds ftiiieral expenses. As such the total amount of coiapensation c-aEnies to Rs.2,80,000/'-. Because of50% contrlbutoiy negl^ence on fb.e part ofthe deceased, fh.e clainiaat would becoiae entitled for Rs.1,40,000/'- as total compensatiou in place of Rs.92,000/- as awarded by fhe Clauas Trjb'anal. Interest has beeu granted @ 99'o which ueeds no iaterfereiice. 10. For reasous mentioned herein. above, the appeal is aUowed In. part. The claimant is now entiUed for Rs.1,40,000/- in place ofRs.92,000/- as awarded by the Claims Trlbunal. The awaid is inodified to the above exteut. Rest of the coudltions uieutioned iu fhe award shaU reHiaiu latact. 11. The amount already deposited shatl be adjusted towards fhe amount of couipensatiou of Rs. 1,40,000/ -. 12. The respondeat No. 1/the United India I.asurance Company Limited is graiited three nioufhs' tuue to deposit the euhaaced auiount of coiapexisation i.e. Rs.48,000/- alougwitb. iuterest. 13. There shaU be no order as to costs, Sd/- G.Minhajjudin Judge Kvr •V \,