^ ^ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARHl ^ Misc. Appeal (Cl No.^^^ of 2008 yj¥^jo§]D. Appellant ^The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) Vs. Respondent No.l/Claimant ^ Respondent No.2/Claimant Respondent No.3 •t'; ......::::;^ ^•^"^Q-" ^^"'_,^-^'f^5 ^--"^\ .^••^ -Smt. Kala Bai, wife of late Dhel Kumar, aged 30 years. Kailash Kumari, D/o late Dhel Kumar, aged 3 years. Master Brij Mohan, son of late Dhel Kumar, aged about 1 Vz years. Respondents No. 2 & 3 are minors through their natural guardian mother respondent No.1 Smt. Kala Bai, resident of village Pangaon, Post Baloda Bazaar, District Raipur (C.G.) Presently resident at Opp. Jainam palace, near Pulgaon Nalah, District Durg (C.G.) -Surendra Kumar Sharma, s/o Shrikrishna Sharma, aged about 33 years, resident of Plot No. 26, Street - C, Triveni Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) Ajay Kapilesh, S/o not known to the parties (as mentioned in the impugned order), Regional Manager, Indore Fontech Limited, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION T?3 OF THB MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE ORDER/AWARD DATEDW31.12.2007 PASSED BY THE I1TH ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. RAIPUR (F.T.C.l PRESIDED^OVER ^Y SHRI RAVI SHANKAR SHARMA IN CLAIM CASE N^110/2007 Appeal valued at Rs.8,00,500/- and affixed courtfee at Rs.15/- Respondent No.4/Drverof the Motor vehide Respondent No.S/Owner •^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ. M.A.(C) No. 548/2008 Appellant Respondents Vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Durg (CG) Smt. Kala Bai and others Present: Mr. Abhishek Sinha, counsel for the appetlant/insurance company. Mr. Somkant Verma, counsel for respondent No.1. ORDER (Orall (26th August, 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi. J This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award of the 11th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Durg (in short 'the Tribunal) dated 31st December, 2007 passed in Claim Case No. 110/07 by the appellanVOriental Insurance Co. Ltd., challenging the quantum part only. 02) Permission was granted to the appellant/insurance company under Section 170 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Tribunal. 03) Brief facts of the case are that on 18.11.2006 near Pulgaon nalla, in front of Jenam Palace, respondent No.4 by driving the motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 07/L-0104, owned by respondent No.5, rashly and negligently, dashed Dhelkumar, as a result of which he sustained numerous grievous injuries over his person and ultimately, succumbed to the same during treatment in hospital on 20.11.2006. On the basis of report, offence was registered against respondent No.4 by the police under Cr.No.453/06 for the offence under Section 304A of the IPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against him before the competent Court. .. /s"'^ 1 %-s^ j ^^^ ^ 04) At the time of accident, the deceased was 35 years of age and by working in brick kiln and through agriculture, he was earning Rs.11,000/- to 12,000/- per month. For the treatment of the deceased, the applicants had to incur Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, the claimants, who are widow and children of the deceased, being his legal heirs filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short: "the Act") for a total compensation of Rs.35,05,0007- for the death of Dhelkumar under various heads. 05) However, learned Tribunal, after close scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the parties before it, by the impugned award granted a total compensation of Rs.8,00,500/- in favour of respondent No.1 to 3/claimants, fastening the liability upon the appellanVinsurance company, jointly and severally, along with driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 06) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the LCR as also the impugned award. 07) Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company has contended that the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants is on much higher side. The Tribunal has committed an error while calculating the amount of compensation and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 has not been followed. Therefore, the amount of compensation deserves to be reduced suitably. 08) Upon perusal of the LCR, we have found that the deceased was aged about 35 years on the date of accident. Therefore, according to the law laid down in Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier of 16 would be applicable. Though, it has been averred by the claimants that the deceased was working in brick kiln and during off days, he was working in the agricultural fields, but no document has been filed regarding income of the deceased and therefore, income of the deceased should have been assessed at Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd, the remainder comes to Rs.24,000/-. After applying the multiplier of 16, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,84,000/-. Besides this, the widow of the /f;:T^ (&. i ^£<»^^ :^.-..^^- ^ deceased is entitled to get a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and the claimants are entitled to get Rs.10,000/- more for loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. Since the deceased was got admitted in hospital where he remained till 20.11.2006, a further sum of Rs.10,000/- is liable to be awarded towards medical expenses. Therefore, after adding the aforesaid sum of Rs.35,000/-, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.4,19,000/-. Besides this, the Tribunal has fixed simple interest @ 8% p.a. on the amount of compensation from the date of application till its payment, which shall remain intact. hlowever, the penal interest awarded by the Tribunal is hereby set aside. The interim award shall be adjusted towards the above compensation. The award of lawyers' fee and the cost assessed by the Tribunal shall also remain intact. 09) In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the amount of compensation is reduced to the above extent. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge