TH E 1IIGH COUR^T Q!" C11HATTISGARH AT BILASPUR A. (l;) No.A7^_/2C)U7 'PELl,i''YNT •fendi)ntNo.3. l';SPONDENT liurnaiit No.l -Versiis - ^ lil'.SPOMDENT ( l;i.imaiit No.2 lil-;SODNENT 1 iliiimant No.3 ^x •«?• ^"^ ...•^:%^ •:^''1" •:S!'0!)NENT1 feiidill-itNo.l i;SPONDENT :feiidantNo.2 The Oriental Insurarice Cornpany Ltcl. Dhamtari, Main Road Jagdalpur, through its DivisioTisil Manager, Divisional Office No.Il, Raipur (C.G.). Smt. Raiti Kashyap, 45 years, W/o Late Naval Kashyap (Naishargik), Advocate for respondent No.3. Ku. Lalita, 18 years, D/o Late Naval. Shri Vimal Kashyap, 17 years, S/o Late Naval Kashyap (rninor boy),Through the Respondent No.l natiiral Mother (not describecl i n t.he ca.use title) All are R/o Badepara, Village Taragaon, Post - Bhanpuri, District - Baster (C.G.) Shri B. C. Kishan Nayak, 26 years, S/o Shri Neelamani Nayak, Occupation - Di iver, R/o House of Gagan Lodhi, Giidiyari, Raipur. -Driver- Shri Mohd. Aadif, S/o Shri Hazi Asil Habeeb, R/o Lalpur, Raipur _..., -Owner- x "). -I ^- '^ J^ <pt,^y^ iz% ;< '^.^•' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISCARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIQN BENCH HON'BLE MR. !.M.QUDDUS! & HON'BLE MR. SULAM MINHAJUDDIN, jJ. ARRellant Resoondents I.A.rclNo.874/2007 The Oriental insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Raiti Kashyap & others Present w'ir. Ajay Mishra, Advocate for the appeiianl. None for the respondent-claimants even in ttie second catl though served. ORDER I'Orall (26th Ju!y, 2011) LQyddysLJ; Heard. 6. By way of this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act> 1988'), the appellant-lnsurance Company has challenged the award dated 11.5.2007 passed by leamed 2 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdatpur (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 17/06. Permission under Section 170 of the Act, 1988 has been granted to the appellant-lnsurance Company. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the claimants, who are mother, brother & sister of the deceased, have filed a claim application under Section 166 or the Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.18,98,500/- for the death of deceased Leechanram (n the motor accident which took place on 23.1.2006 when the motor cycle of the deceased, on which he was going to his duty, was dashed by the offending vehicle bearing registration number CG04-A-9252 on aecount of rash and negligent driving by the driver of said vehicle. The claimante have ciaimed compensation on the ground that the deceased was the sole earning member in the family and they were dependent on his eamings. On the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal has framed as many as five issues and after considering material availabte on record allowed claim application of the claimants, awarded a compensatton of Rs.5,90,505/- and fastened liability on the appellant herein to pay eompensation. Learned counsel for the appellant-lnsuranee Company contended that whlle flxing the amount of compensation the Claims Tribunal has not fbllowed the law laid down by the Mon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and therefore, the same is llabte to be interfered by this Court. _ - ."?'•), •<t "•":!", '% !:^ \ •-.sa vs '^^'f^ss^^ 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appeltant and perused the records of the Claims Tribunal as also the impugned award. 8. Perusal of the record shows that the Claims Tribunal has raade unnecessarily deducted the amount of GPF & GIS from the monthly salary of the deceased and held that the deceased was earning Rs.4,931/-. The Claims Tribunat has also deducted only 1/3rd towards personal and living expenditure, whereas.as per Sarla Verma's case (supra), where the deceased is a bachelor, 50% deduction towards pereonal expenditure of the deceased is to be made. The multiplter applied by the Claims Tribunal is not proper because as per Sarla Verma's case (supra) multiplier of 16 would be applicable in ttie (acts of the present case. Therefore, we are of the opinion that method adopted by the Ciaims Tribunal to fix the compensation is improper, 9. In view of above, we hold that monthly Income of the deceased was Rs.S.446/- i.e. Rs.65,352/- p.a. and if we deduct 50% from it towards personal & living expenses of the deceased and thereafter apply muttiplier of 16, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.5,22.816/-. Besides this, the claimants are entitled to get Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus. the total amount of compensation for whtch the claimants are entitled for fs Rs.5,32,816/- and not Rs.5,90,505/- as awarded by the Ctaims Tribunal as it is excessive. 10.1n the result, we allow the appeal in part and modify the award dated 11.5.2007 passed in Claim Case No.17/06 and direct that now the daimants shall be entitled to get Rs.5,32,816/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% from Uie date of application tilt the payment is made. Rest of the conditions of the Claims Tribunal shalt remain intact. However, it is made ctear that the amount already paid by the appellant-lnsurance Company and withdrawn by the claimants shall be adjusted towards the amount of compensation as fixed by this Court. 11. The appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. 12. C.C as penryles^ §d/- G. Minbajuddin Roshan/- Sd/- I.M.Q"ddusi Judge Judge '