'sjoaA oi+noqu pa6o 'npo^ aiDALjsuDq^ 34.D1 J-0 UOS 'l|SD>|V •£ 'sjuaA Q2 4-noqo pa6o 'npD/, aiDAL|suDL|9 34.D-] J.O UOS 'pUIAjy •; 'sjoaA 9^ 4-noqo P^SD 'npDA aiD/LjSUDL|5) ^+D-I j.0 3J.IM ^ / 'npD/, lug iL|so4.uos •4.ius "1 ^ (S-I-UDUUIDI^) :SlN3QNO<IS3y SA •a|oA3jo4.oai opuoH OJSH 61705 l^ 1709^'ON 3I3!43A ^o jauMQ 'jndioy 4.3U4.SIQ 'Djnt|L|^ 's'd 'DAa+jodiUDy 36D||i/\ j.o ^.uapisaj 'a3iAjas-uoi4.Ddn330 'sjoaA 92 pa6o 'oAog |D-] UDLioaipug j.0 uos oAog jDtun» 4.DjDt|g^2 'a|3X3jo+oai Dpuot| ojaH 6170S 19 1709^'°N 3I:?!43A ^° JaAjJQ 'jndjDy 4.3U4.SIQ 'DjnLjtj^ 's'd 'DAa+jodiuoy a^DII!A J-° 4.uap!?-aj 'aoiAjas-uoi+Ddnooo 'sjuaA 92 pa6o 'DAog |D-I UDqoiufug j-o uos 'jDain> UDL|SU» 'i ^!&^ ^;:'^^-< ^.^ • ^::.^ ^??"" a|31L|3A j.0 uaAUp y JBUMQ :S±N^^3ddV 800Z7^tTf'ON ^yV3ddV •^SIW yndsviig iv ayniv^iQTTr do lyno^ H^IH BHI NI "£.l fi^ 5,/Smt. 4, Vikash, son of Late Ghanshyam Yadu, aged about 08 years. Sukhbati wife of Hirauram Yadu, aged about 60 years. 6.,l-1irauram Yadu, son of Late burjan Yadu, aged about 68 years. All residents of Village Marod, Post Sirpur, P.5. Tumgaon, Tahsil <& bistrict Mahasamund s\9?B ft t- - vftLu^U ? 4, 34^6/" MISCELLEANOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 ^ !%^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTKGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C)No. 462 of 2008 APPELLANTS Owner & Driver of vehicle RESPONDENTS Claimants Krishan Kumar & Another Versus Smt. Santoshi Bai Yadu & Others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEH1CLES ACT DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M. Quddusi & Hon'bte Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal. Present : Shri Vwek Chopra, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Raghvendra Pradhan with Shri Harsh Mahant, Advocates for respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on 9th day of September, 2010) Per: I.M. Quddusi, J. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants, against the award dated 05.03.2008, passed by the Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunat, Mahasamund (for short 'the Trlbunal') in claim case No. 49/07, awardlng Rs. 4,32,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2(X)0/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 2000/- for loss of consortium thus total Rs. 4,36,000/-. Brief facts of the case are that, on 09.01.2007, Dr. Ghanshyam Yadu (since deceased) while driving his motorcycte (Hero Honda) bearing registration No. CG-06-A-8610, dashed by the driver of motorcycte (Hero Honda CD Deluxe) bearing registration No. CG-04-CL-5049 due to which he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. e 'f 3. The claimants i.e. unfortunate wklow, one major son, two minor child and parents of deceased preferred an applteation before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claimjng compensation to the tune of Rs. 22,20,0007- for the death of their bread-eamer in the said accident. 4. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evjctence led by the parties, the material avaitable on the record, and submissions of the parties, awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,36,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants. 5. The deceased was a medicat practttioner having a certjficate of RMP and was aged about 41 years. The Tribunal has held corrtributory negligence on the part ofdeceased also. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also seeing that there is no documentary evidence regarding income of the deceased, we are of the opinion thal his income should be fixed more than a labour and getting under the Minimum Wages Act, therefore, the income of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal i.e. Rs. 9000/- per montti is betng excessive, to our opinion, it should have been Rs. 4000/- per month i.e. Rs. 48.000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd of it towards personal e^enses of the deceased it comes to Rs. 32,000/- per annum. 7. In case of Saria Vemia (Smt.) And Qthers v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another1 a chart has been given according to which multiplier of 14 is applicable in the present case as the 1 2009 (6)SCC 121 ^y 3 deceased was aged about 41 years, and therefore, if we apply multiplier of 14, the compensation amount comes to Rs. 4,48,000/-, but due to contributory negligence it will come down 50 % of Rs. 4,48.000/- i.e. Rs. 2,24,000/-which would be adequate amount on account of loss of dependency. There were 6 claimants including wife, one major son, twt^minor child and parents, out of which, father of the deceased was aged about 68 years and mother was aged about 60 yeare old, therefore, they are ateo entitled for consortium, loss of love & affection and loss of estate. 8. Therefore, the widow of deceased is entitled to get Rs. 10,000/- as consortium, three children are entitled to get Rs. 3000/- each on account of love & affection and parents are also entitled to get Rs. 5,000/- each on account of tove & affection towards their deceased son. Besides these amount, the claimants are further entitled to Rs. 3000/- for funerai expenses and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of estate. Total of these amount comes to Rs. 37,000/- on Other Heads. Thus. the claimants are enfrtled for a total sum of Rs. 2,61.000/- (2,24,000/-+37.000/-) which will be adequate amount and besides these amount, the claimants would be entitled to get interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of filing application. Out of the above amount. a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit for a period of five years in any NaUonalEed Bankwlh a conditton that moriBily mterest shaU be payabte to friewife offrie cteceased namety SantosN Bai Yadu OUt of the remaining amourt, the parents of the (•:> \ < ^'^•^ 1 < i ; ^•^ ^ ^:^ '^ ^ ^/ deceased namely Hirs^iram Yadu and SuMibati shall be entitled to get Rs. 15,OOG/- each and remaining amount sl^ill be paid to the widow of the deceased for and on behalf of the children. 9. The appeal is accorcWngly allowed in part to the above extent. 10. However, in the facts and cffcumstances of the case, there shall be no order a®tocosts. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge Sahu