*&>:: IN THEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL [C1 N0. 9fe~? /2011 MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 APPELLANT INSURER Dlvlsion Bench Insurance ^> ^yy /y^- "^ ^'^ •^'.^ 'y RESPONDENTS CLAIMANTS Driver cuni owner HDFC ERGO 'General Company Limited Through : its Assistant Legal Manager, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited 205-206- 2nd floor, DM Tower 7, Ftace course Road, Indore (M.P.) VERSUS 1. Mirza Izrail Beg, S/o Shri Mirza Rahman Beg, aged about 50 years, 2. Smt. Hapsa Begam w/o Shri Mirza Izrail Beg, aged about 42 years, 3. Ku. Shabana D/o Mirza Izrail Beg @ Mirza Ismail Beg, aged about 19 years. All Resident of Quarter No. 137, Yadunandan Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Shri Jeet Singh S/o late Shri Pyar Singh, aged about 47 years, R/o Shahid Bhagat Singh Ward, Tatibandh, Raipur (C.G.). APPEALVALUED AT RS. 4.00.000/- COURT FEE Rs. 15/- mGH GOURT or CHHACTISGJURH AT BBAS»CR M.A. (01 N0. 967 W 2011 APPfiULftNT/ (INSUR^l HDFC EROO OeiMaBHl Iiisux-axiue Company Limited. Versus Mirza teail Beg and ofhers. t; '•'-s - AKPEaU. 1TNDER SEeriON 173 0V THE MOTOR VEaEHOUES MT. 1988 D.B.: Hon'ble Shri I.M. Quddusl & Hoa'ble Shrt G. mnhatudtfla. JJ. Present: Shri Sourabh Sharma, couasel for the appellant. Sl~u*i Om. P. Sahu, cotuisel for fhe cjteimants on caveat ORALO^Ml (Passed on 12th day ofSeptenber, 3011) PerI.M. Quddusi Since learned counsel for the caveators/claimants 1s present, therefore, we ai~e disposiiig of ttris appeal even at thestage ofadmission wifh fhe consent oflearned eounsel for fhe parties. 2. This appeal has been ffled by the appeUaut/HDFC ERGO Genei'al Ii^ufaace Company Llmlted svgaahst the impugiied-awai'd dated 27-06-2011 passed by the Secoad Additional Dlstrlct, Motor-Aceideiit Claims Tribmial and Additlonal Sesslons Judge,~ BUaspui* (for short the Cleums Tribunal) in Claim C^fe No.98/2011, In so far as It relates to quiantum part only. s ^ 3. The appellant/Insui'aiice Coinpaay was granted permisslon by tfae Clalms Ttibunal under SeGtloa 170 pf .»"_... J'" . .- - ^. . . • ' the Motor Vehlcles Act (for ^iort fhe Act^. 4. Brief facts of the case ai~e fhat on~ 04-08-2009, deceased Ku. Sofla Aajum was goii^ from GDC OoUege to "s c .t" Yaduaaadaa Nagai' on her bicycle. On aecount of being dashed agaiiist fhe statlonary bus, Ku. Anjuai iisll down oa the road. At the same tune, near Rajiv Gandhl Chowk, BUaspur, non-applicaiit No.l by dfivli^; offending vehicle fTruck) bearing registratlon No. C.G. Q4-JB/5013Miara^i and negligent manner, came from back slde aiid crushed Ku. Sofia Anjum, resultmg in her deatli on fee spot On Che date of accideiit, ffae age of ftie deceased was 21 years and she was earning Rs.5000/- by holdlng tuitioas. 5. The claimants being legsd heirs ofttie deoe^ed filed a petltlou under Section 166 of the Motor Velacles Act (fi>r short fhe Act') before tfae Claims Tflbunal claimic®a totd compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the deafh of fhe deceased. 6. Learned Clalms Trlbunal on a close scrutiay of evldence led, material placed and submissions atade by tlie parties, has awarded a total amouiit of Rs.4,00,©00/- agaliist non-applicants No. 1 & 2 jotatly aad sewerally along witfa interest @ 6% per Minum fn>m the date of applicatton tiU Its payment. So fai' as flie appMcant No. 3 is concerned, the clalm petltion is dlsiuissed. 7. We have pemsed (he impugaed awafd passed by flie Clalms Trlbunal. 8. The deceased was aii uflmarried girl whose ags was about 21 years. No proaf ot ber ineoiBe was given. It has been stated by fafher of the glrl ^deceased) (hat she was earnlf^ iiicome by way of holding tuitlons. The learned Tribunal has assessed thc income of flie deceased as Rs.5000/- permonthand deducted l/3Id of flielncome of the deceased towards persoinal and Uvlngexpeases instead of % (ha^f Theaverage age ofthe parents ofthe deeeased has also not been takeii Into conslderatlon. Therefore, (he Claims Tribunal has violated fhe prindples lald down fcy -+-1 •'-\ G ^- f- HoiiTjle Uie Supiiiuie Coui-t m Uie ease of acvtti. Vwma. (Sntt.) eind others -c«s- JBethi IVianaiport Cmyorutton cutd cinothw? i-eporled iii (200^ S SCC 121. 9. Havlng r^ard to facts and eiKST.uustanoes crftheease and having heard learned couxisel for fhe parties, in our opiuion ttie impugned award is liable to be modified in fhe followuig terms: Sm&e fliere was no proof, except (he evidence of the fafher of flie gu'l (deceased) regaFdmg her incoaie, wlthout any supporting document or any further eyldenoe, we assess (he income of fhe deceased aS^Rs.3,500/- pw monfh and Rs. 42,000/- peranaum. Attefdeducttog % (haIQ of ttie income of the deeeased, tlie reia&inder comes to Rs. 21,000/- per aiinum. Su»e,tfaeageofthe parents of fhe deceased was 50 and 42 years, fl average age of the parents ofthe deceased comes to 46 years. Therefore, the miilUplier of 13 would be applicable foltowii^g tfae prihciples laid down by Hon'ble fhe Supreme Gourt in fhie case Sarla y«nnu(Smt.) and wUwrs ^siyr^aiid Uiei-eby loss ofdependency comes to Rs. 2,73,000/-. Bealdes fliis, tfae claimants are entitled to get Rs. 10,000/- for loss of estate and Rs. 5000/- for funenal expenses. Therefwe, fte total amount of compensatKiri comes to Rs. 2,88,000/-. 10. In vlewF of the above, weallow (hls appeal la part and modlfy fhe unpugned award to tfae extent ttiat ttie aaiount of compensatlon 1s reduced to Rs.2,88,000/- and fhe clauaants ai'e entltled to get only fhis amotint as .-»' f^~ ' compeasatiou. Besides this, teiterest and counse fee etc. fixed by the Claims Tribunal shaU remala iirtact. 11. In the result, the appeal is aUowed in part to (he above qstent.No order as to costs. Sd/- G. Minhajuddin S'di- I.M.Quddusi Judge Judge Kvr