HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, M. A.fCt No. 1324 of 2005 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS Shetram Dewangan Versus Smt. Hirondi Bai and others. O R D ER For Pronouncement of Order 13 .01.2011 Sd/- R.L. Jhaiiwar Judge -,"" ^•1 J HLGHCOURTOF^HHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, M.A.(C)No.1324of2005 APPELLANT : Shetram Dewangan, S/o Sonsingh (Owner) Dewangan, Aged about 45 years, R/o Village & Post - Kandul, P.S. Argunda, Tahsil - Gundardehi, Distt - Durg (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Smt. Hirondi Bai, Wd/o Late Dharmu Claimants Ram Sahu, aged about 57 years. 2. Roop Ram Sahu, S/o Dharmu Ram Sahu, aged about 57 years. Driver 3. Gulab Chand Dewangan, S/o Shetram Dewangan, aged about 22 years, All residents of Village - Post Kandul, g,S,.,A,rJund.a, JahsiJ ,- GMpdardebi, Dist. Durg(C.G.) : Insurer 4. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., 952/954, App9 Saheb, Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400 025. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Mohan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, ....-I.— Pandri,_Raipyr,, .Tah, .& Di^t, Raipur Insurance co. of Metador' bearing registration No. CG 04J 4469. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE IVIOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Appearance: • ; Shri Gautam Khetrapal, counsel forthe appellant. ShriA.K.Prasad, counsel for respondents No. 1 &2. ' Shri Sachin Singh Rajpur with Ms. Renu Singh, couhsel for respondent No.4. -.. None for respondent No.3. ORDER (Passedon 13.01.2011) This is an appeal by the owner against the order dated 16.7.2009 passed by the 8 Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No. 208/2008 whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has E-^\ 1 'te^lte, 1 '"i~^^''ia6i£%!l &, I. s S w"y -•B^~^.,.,»^sff' awarded Rs.1,91,500/- as total compensation to the respondents No. 1 & 2 /claimants. 2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that on fateful day of 17.2.2008 the deceased Dharmu Ram Sahu along with other passengers was travelling in the Metador bearing No.C.G.04 J 4469 (for short 'the offending vehicle'), owned by the appellant insured by respondent No.4. The said offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No.3 in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the offending vehicle was uncontrolled and turned turtle, due to which, Dharmu Ram Sahu received serious injuries and thereafter he succumbed due to injuries on 19.02.2008. 3. Seeking compensation of Rs.10,72,000/- under various heads, clainn petition was filed pleading inter alia. The appellant and respondents No.3 and 4 also filed their written statements denying all the averments mentioned therein. 4. All the parties led their evidence before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, on closescrutiny of the evidence on record and, subrpissions made by the parties before it, held that on the date of incident the respondent No.3 was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent imanner and due to which the said offending vehicle was turned turtle resulting into the deceased Dharmu Ram Sahu lost his life on 19.02.2008 and asthe said offending vehicle was-'being driven iri-breach of policy-of insurance, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation ahd it i^ for the owner who shall satisfy the award. It is this order, which is under challenge by the appellant / owner. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Tribynal has erred in awarding amount of Rs.1,80,000/- as total dependency. The Tribunal, taking consideration the fact that the wife being sole depe'ndent, should have deducted one half from the total. No other point was urged. 6. On the other hand,,learne,dcounsel for the claimantp; while supporting the impugned judgment argued that if the Court thinks it fit that there should be deduction in total dependency, then the deduction;may be z one-third by taking into consideration the age of the wife of the deceased. He further argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.5000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2500/- towards loss of estate, which is very meager and it should be increased. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the partiesat length, 1 have perused the impugned order including record of the Tribunal. In the present case, the only point that remains for consideration is asto whether how much amount is to be deducted from the total dependency. Although there was no cogent and clinching evidence regarding income of the deceased, the Tribunal taking into consideration all the material available record, fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum and without deducting even single penny towards expenses ofthe deceased, it directly worked out the dependency of the claimants as Rs.1,80,000/- after applying multiplier of 5 on the said amount. By adding Rs.11.500/- under other heads, the Tribunal worked out the total compensation at Rs.1,91,500/- for the death of Dharmu Ram Sahu in the motor accident. 9. Admittedly, the wife of the deceased is an old woman and the deceased died on 19.02.2008 due to injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 17.02.2008 while he was travelling in the offending vehicle and the said offending vehicle is owned by the appellaht and driven by respondeht Nd.S'in a rashand negligent manner.: The Tribunal taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly assessed total income ofthe deceased as Rs.36,000/- but so far as the approach of the Tribunal in not deducting even single penny from the said notional income, it is wholly unsustainable under law Thereforb, in the opinion ofthis Court,'facts"and"circumstances of the case* and 'enys of justice would be served if the deduction is one-third therefrom. Accordingly, after deducting one-third from Rs.3&f800/-, a sum of Rs.24,000/- would come towards personal expenses of the degeased. The learned Tribunal, taking into cpnsideration the age of the deceased at 60, applied multiplier of 5,_which 1 am oftheview, has been rightlyapplied by the Tribunal. After multiplying the amount of Rs.24,000/- by 5, the total ! . - - -. ^ I ' ' : dependency would come to Rs.1,20,000/-. The Tribunal awarded amount of Rs.11,500/- under other heads, which l am of the considered view, is also on lower side. K.f\:f t.-f r »-si<«'®. ? '-^^•:'-:'''"^. •]• 10. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and all the relevant factors iricluding the above mentioned broad features of the case, it would be appropriate if a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded under other heads i.e. funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium. Therefore, by adding Rs.20,000/- on the amount of Rs.1,20,000/-, the total compensation would come to Rs.1,40,000/-. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.1,91,500/- and if the compensation awarded by this Court is deducted from Rs.1,91,500/-, then theamount would cometo Rs.51.500/-. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the owner is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,91,500/- awarded to thd claimants by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs:1,40,000/- ^; The appellant / oWner is directed to pay Rs.1,40,000/- instead of Rs.1,91,500/-. If the amount awarded by the Tribunal is paid fo the claimants, then the appellant / owneris atlibertyto recoverRs.51,500/-. No order as to costs. J.- ^;3h^a¥ 3ud6<> B