IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHMTISGARH AT BIIASPUR M.A. (C) No.- /^r /2010 (D.B.) iFsy^ K^s- •i®iiU6( APPELLANT THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, GEETANJALI BHAWAN, OLD BUS STAND, KORBA, TEHSIL & DISTRICT - KORBA C.G. Vrs. RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS ^....•, ..-•• ^-^ ^>'!> ^"^.-••"' .13-3. 4. :-l. SMT. SETI BAI RATHORE WIDOW OF LATE SHRI SANTRAM RATHORE, AGE 35YRS. '2. UMA KUMARI J/0 LATE SHRI SANTRAM RATHORETAGE 16 YRS., SEEMA KUMARI, D/0 LATE SHRI SANTRAM RATHORE, AGE 14 YRS., DEEPAK KUMAR S/0 LATE SHRI SANTRAM RATHORE, AGE 12 YRS., FOR MINOR RESPONDENTS NO.-2 TO 4 MINOR, THROVGH GUARDIAN AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, MOTHER SMT. SETI BAI RATHORE W/0 LATE SHRI SANTRAM RATHORE, ALL RESIDENT, AT BHAISMAKHAR, THANA KUSMUNDA, TEHSIL KATGHORA, DISTRICT-KORBAC.G. RESPQNDENTS/NON-APPLICANTS :- 5. FIRTU LAL KENWAT S/0 SHRI GORE LAL KENWAT, AGE ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDENT VILLAGE- JORHADABRI, GHOUKI HARDIBAZAR, DISTRICT- KORBA C.G. 6. PRAMOD JAIN, S/0 L.C. JAIN, RESIDENT A/13, KANTINAGAR, NEAR GAYATRI MANDIR, BILASPUR, DISTRICT BILASPUR,C.G. (^^^ ,2.. ..2.. APPEALUNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEfflCLE ACT 1988 V HIGH GOURTOP OHKATTBBaARH. »II,d(MSH»UR DB: HOM>BLB I.M.QIHWU8I& HOH'BtE MJE. ACBUCTKAL, JJ M. A. (Cl. Me. 1087 OB'aOlO Vs. RBSPCTroBNT Smt Seti Bal Rathore gnd others APPEALintDBRSBCnON 173 W THB MOTOR VBBHGUB8ACST, 1988 APPBARANCB: Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, couasd for the stpptSaat. Mr. Aai^akant Tiwari, counsel far rospondente 1 to 4. ORI»R(ORALI (23.11.20l<q Per LM. QODDU8I, J t. Thfa appcal has been ftled by tbe claanants agaiast nnpitpied award dated 29.6.2010 passed by the Addittonal Motor Acddent Clauus Tribuaal, Ka^hoca, District Korba (C.G) tai Claim Case No.130/2008 amarding Rs.16,96,068/- as compensation wlth a further direction fhat the said amount •> wiU eany interest at 6% per anaiua flroin the date offllii^ of the claim petitioa ifit is paid wifhiri 45 daysoffhe awwri aad after fhe stipulated period, it shaU carry penal iatCTest @ 9% peraitaum. 2. Brief facts of the case as per fhfi versi&n of fhe claimant ase that on 07.02.2008 Santram (deceascd) was gan^ by his Motorcyete: ftom Katghora to Vijagrpur. At that timc,near Toni Dhaba at Katghora, one Truclt bearfng Rcgn.No. C.G.10- A/6220 wluch was beine driven rashly aad se^siesaQy by APPBLLANT The Oriental toswaace Cbinpaay Uxuited M1 respondeat no.5 dashed the motorcycte of Santraai, as a result of which Saatram. received grievous iiyurics and dfed on the spot. The deceased was aged about36 ycars and before the accident, he was workuig ia Bagdeya Ptoject of South Easteca Coal Fields Ltd., aad was drawiag a inonttity salaty of Rs.15,000/-. Ttifi oflfendii^; vehlcte was owncd by respoadent no.6 aad insured with the appeBaat insiuaace coiapaay. The widow aad mlaor chfldren beit^ dependents ofthe deceascd filed claim. petition secldng a Gompeasatioa to fhc tune of Rs.90,20,000/- on different heads, 3. The learaed claims Tribuiial held that the oflfeiiding velucte •waa involved ia fhc accident which was drivea by Bespoiidcnt no.5 rashly and negligenffy, as a result ofwhjch flxe de<»ascd died on the spot an^d the clmmants are eatifled to seceive a total coinpensatioa ofRs.16,96,068/-. 04. Leamed counsel for the appellant contends that the compeiisatioa awanlcd by fhc Tribimal is on h^her sjSe aad the tnbunal has wroagfy calcuiated ftie coiupensattonwifhout fhere being deduction of iaGomc tax. He fiu-fher eontends •• tfaat the deceased was also liabte fcu- fhe accidcnt (herefore coutriibutoiy negl^ence ought to have bcen considered. 5. We have gone fhrough the Lower Court RecQrds. In rebuttal, no evidence has beea led by the InsurEm.cc Company reganling iacoine or contributoiy negUgencc of fhe dcoeaaed aad ia absence offhe same, fhe pleas taken by tfae Insurance Coinpany is not tenable in fhe eye oflaw. 6. There is a pay sUp of llie dcceased available oa recoid. Accoidiag to wluch, the deceascd was dBSBffiag fhe net salaiy ofRs.12,981/- per monfh. -Besides thte he was payiog P.P. Rs.1299/-, FPF Rs.139/-, LIC Rs.1486 aad Co-opeiative Firm Pension Fund Rs. 153/ - by deductu^ ia hte gross salary. A(ter adding these amouats to the net salaiy, the xaoafhfy iacome comes to Rs. 16.058/- per inoafh aad thc anaual incoine coines to Rs.1,92,696/-. If we deduct income tax approximatety Rs.20,000/-, fhe net aaaual incoaae comes to Rs.1,72,696/- 7. Regarding deductioas, Hon'bte fhe Apex Court in case of Sarta Verma (Smt.) and oth«rs -v3- Ofitit Tlwuiqxw* Corporatton anA emwtthcr (2009) 6 SCC 121 h^ laM dowa the principles in Para 30 fhat wherc fhe deceased was married, the deduction tuwards pcrsonal and Uviag cxpenses of fhe deceased, should be oiie-tfaird (1/3) where the niuaber of dependent faxmty members is 2 to 3, onc-fourfh (l/4th) where fhe nuinberofdepaident feuaity aaeinbers te 4 to 6, and one-fifth (l/5th) wheie the nuinber of dcpendent &iaity members exceeds 6. In the insteat appeal, the nimaber of ^ depeadent fanuty meinbers ace 4 cxeludiiq; fhe deceaaed, therefore, the staiulaxd deduction for personal aod Uviag expenses would be 1/4*11 which comes to Rs.43,174/-. Aflier deducting fhis amount tom fhc net nnnnal inconae that is Rs. 1,72,696/-, the loss of annual dependeacy is worked out toRs.1,29,522/-. ^ 8. The deceased was ia the aye group of 36 to 40, the»efoae, accoidir^ to ffae inultipUer scate given ia Sarto lferTna',8 case (supr^ vide para 40, ttie multiplier would bc 15 and tfaus after applying the multiplicr 15 to tbe annual loss of depcndency fhat is Rs.1,29,522/-, fhe total toss of dependcncy comes to Rs.19,42,830/-. Since the deceased was a youiig inan of agcd about 38 years, thcrefoiie, future prospecte of iacoine was sSso liable to bc considcred. But the Tribiuial has assessed fhe total toss of dependency as Rs.16,61,568/- aad besales this, osfy awaided Rs.15,000/- for loss of consortium to thc wife; Rs.TOOO/- for l<»soflove and aBfection to each child fhat is Rs.15,000/- to thc othcr clamiaats who are miaor cluldren; Rs.2000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- for toss of estate whteh aic not excesswc. Therefore, we are of fhe opintoa Oiat there is no scope ofinterference in the quantuin fixed by fhe Tribunal ia the impugued award. 9. However, at tfais sta^e, learaed couasd for fhe appeBaat contends that the penal niterest @ 9% per rinTinni yanted by ft Tribunal after fhe stipulated pcriod is on h^hffl' sul®. *L 10. We are of fhe opinion that the intcrest @ 9% is not proper. Thcrefore, we aeducc the sainc to 6% and direet that fhe amount uader the award shaU cany laterest @ 6% throughout fiuin the date of claim petition tUl the payment of reaUzation. Rcst of fhe condittons of the awanl shatl remain iatact. 'a'?'?'?^;?^?^^^!^^^^;':^^ .•sf"^.^^ /.f^ "^ 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the Impiyied award dated 29.6.2010 fa niodified to the above exteat Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Jydge Rao 'SeSSSaSssiSS