IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BIIASPUR.(C.G.l MiffietJaneousAcoea! No, 12003 Smt. Rash^ria Begam.^^d about 38 yeats ^ W/o. Kamaludin R/o.NearShakBnagar Masjid P.0. Shankar Nagar, & Dist : Ralpur(CG) , .i;?^ ^ifjBt- ei.i»l«|i| IE X, ^^y: •^^ ^^y- .y ..'^•<y * ^^•••' .'y^; .?'-'" ^' _.i ^" i.^' y I)y y ^6) 7) Shambu S/o. Charanjit, S/o Malkeet Singh Botfi R/o, Chima Construction Near Raitvay Cr(ssing,Avantina^r Ratpijr(CG) Ttie New India InsuraiKe Co. Ltd., R.D.A. Building, Bajrang MaArt, G.E. Road, Through Divisional Manager Raipur(CG} Rahman Khan, S/o. Ibrahim Khan, Aged atmut 42 years, R/o. Idhabhata, Raipur Rajak S/o Ibrahim Khan,Aged 40 y<s. Jabbar S/o. Ibrahim Khan,fyed 38 yis Both R/o. Nodhapara, Raip Jalat Khan S/o Ibrahim Khan,^ed 35 yre. R/o. ShBkHnagar, Raipur Siscelianeous Appeal unda' secdon 173 OF Motor Vehides Act 198B •-"•''-. ?- j'J /^ A :-:^^M^ HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. No. 445 of 2003 Appellant Smt. Rasheeda Begam Versus Respondents Shambu & others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173,QF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ Shri Arjun Singrol, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Sri Kumar Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Shri A. K. Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. None for the respondents No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. ORDER (Oral) • , , ( Passedonthis 22nd dayofMarch, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. 1. This appeal, filed by the appellant/clain'iant, arises from the award dated 17.2.2003, passed by the 9U1; Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Raipur in Claim Case No. 15/2002, dismissing the claim petition. 2. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 25.11.1999 at about 7.00 a.m. deceased Jalal Khan was going on his. scooter bearing registration No. 23-A/0290. When he reached near Awanti Chowk the vehicle - Truck, bearing regista-ation No. M.P. 61/0305, which was being driven by the non-applicant No.l in a rash and negligeht manner, coming from the opposite side i.e. Telibandha, directly hit the scooter. As a result of this accident Jalal Khan died on the spot. 3. Initially the claim petition was field by Smt. Johra Begum (widow niother of the deceased) and present appellant/Smt. Rashida ;5i".,N •if!9.;^S^i^r ji3 !!il3 ;^5!§-: l»;Jl!N{8 Begum (widow sister of the deceased). During the pendency of the claim petition the claimant No. 1 died. Learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the appellant/claimant has failed to establish that she was dependent upon the deceased. In the evidence it has come that other brothers of the deceased were married and only the deceased was bachelor and was feeding to his widow raother and widow sister (the present appellant). One of the brother namely Rahinan Khan (AW3) came in the witness box and narrated the story that since the widow inother was alive during the life time of the deceased, he was feeding his widow mother as well as widow sister (present appellant). Having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record we are of the opinion that the deceased Jalal Khan, who was a bachelor, residing with his widow mother and widow sister must have been spending some part of his earnings on them. The deceased was working as builditig material supplier. The minimum wages, if counted, would be Rs. 3000/- per month, total ofwhich comes to Rs. 36,000/- per year. After deducting 50% towards personal and living expenses of the deceased the loss of dependency coines to Rs. 18,000/- per annum.As there were two claiinants the equal apportionment of the loss of dependency for one claimant comes to Rs. 9000/- per annum. Thus, we are of the opinion that the sole claimant/appellant is entitled for 25% of the total income of the deceased which coines to Rs. 9000/- per annum. The age of the claimant was 35 years therefore the multiplj.er of 16 would be applicable in the present case. "^.liftu ms»: 7. In view of the above, we assess total loss of dependency to the appellant/claimant as Rs. 1,44,000/- ( Rs. 9000/- x 16). But, it has also con-ie in evidence that the son of the claimant is of the age group of 18 years or more and he somedmes goes to work, therefore, some loss of dependency is to be deducted in view of the earning of the son of the Glaimant, not all the time but for a few days in a month. Therefore, in our opinion Rs. 44,000/- should be deducted from the amount of total loss of dependency, as assessed by us. Thus, we award.as sura of Rs. 1,00,OOO/- to the appellant/claimanttowards loss of dependency. 8. In addition to above, under conventional heads we award Rs. 5000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 5000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 5000/- towards loss of estate i.e. total Rs. 15,000/-. Therefore, the appellant/claimant is entitled to a total surn of Rs. 1,15,000/- as compensation with simple interest @ 6% per annum froni the date of the filing of the claim petition till its payment is made. 9. The amount of Rs. 50,000/- awarded towards no fault liability shall be adjusted from the total amiount of compensation. 10. The amount of compensation shall be paid to the appellant/claiinant by the insurance company. 11. We allow this appeal to the above extent, setting aside the impugned award dated 17.2.3003. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M. Quddiisi Judge Sd/- prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Thakur