^T ^l .r>Jt 's 3^ ^TJT o'i 's I sscf- ->H ^i.' -S3 : •^3 •' ^'e' & '• S B; _:. c g .S a: <£ §, BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL [C] N0.1 &; 11^ /2007 MJSC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR APPELLANT RESPONDENTS CLAIMANT DRrVER OWNER <f*s ^ VEHICLE ACT. 1988 The New India AssurSice Company Limited, through - Divisional Manager the New India Assurance Coinpany Lunited, Bilaspur, 2nd Floor, Raina Trade Centre, Opposite- Rajeev Plaza, Bus Stand, BUaspur [C.G.j. VERSUS M» Smt. Sumrit Nishad Widow of Teejram Nishad, aged about 40 years, Minor Ramayan Nishad son of late Teejram. Nishad, aged about 08 ^ years. Minor Sukhcharan Nishad, son of late Teejrani Nishad, aged about 04 years. Minor Siya son of late Teejram ^ Nishad, aged about 02 years Respondent no. 2 to 4 ininor represented through mother Smt. Sumrit Nishad.''" AU resident of village - Tohdi, Po^t Temri, Vikas Khand Nawagarh, District Durg (Chhattisgarh), At present residing at viUage'-^fegi,; Post Arujuni, P.S. Bhatapara (Grainin) Dista-ict Raipur (C.G.) 5. ^Ramprasad Sahu son of Shri Manaram Sahu, aged about 25 years, R/o village Temri, P.S. Nandghat, District Durg (C.G.) Tilluram son of Late Manaram SaJiu, aged about 28 years, R/o village - Temri, P.S. Nandghat, District Durg (C.G.) Smt. Raimun widow of Manaram Sahu, aged about 50 years, R/o village - Temri, P.S. Nandghat, District Durg (C.G.) f j^ ^ ^7 ^' CLAIM IN APPEALVAtUED AT RS.4.82.500/- ®MCOURfOFeHHAT11S6ARHATBILASPUft OIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE %R. I.Al.QU&bUSI S. HON'BkEMR.Ni<WALKISHOREA6ARWAI..Jj M.A-fO No.l4tS/2007 Vs The New Inclija Assurance Company^Ltd. Smt. Sumrit IMishad and others rresenT. AAr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for the: appe)lant. Anr. Ashok Soni, Advocate fdr pespondent No^ l.to 4. -s^:- OROERfDrai) (27*l'0ctober; 20105 ^: 1. Heard. [ 2. The aDpellant- insurance company has fNedflWiS misc , theawarddoted 23.08.2007 Dassedin:Cla!ffl-CaseNo.24^QQ6wherebythe ^^leorned'. :Add itiohal Mptor Accident Clajms Tribunal, Bhatnpara, E>isfrict . ^KcuJpui-, (fdr shdrt the ;tFibunal') hus,.aliowed the clalm petjtion of resgondsnt ^';^?-|^o^IiB4 hereiri and awarded a sum of Rs.4,82;50Q/- as w ;.;g^|fH.'T(fterest@ 6% and fastenecf the liabilitY pn the appellant herein to 'S'l^rt^'Ns-t'ftyawar'd. ,;' ". •1 ' . '--, ;';: / .•..••:,.. ' ••, , ' ' 1 ':—-; S.y^Pepro.sstSi'i-tmder Section l70ofthe^fVtotor'Ve}iieles^ct,1988tQcontestthe .-(: ^aua^fEigall available defences was granted tothe dppeliant-com • , llr?^'' • •''..' 1.'' ' ' '' •. .' . . . .' • . "'..•;• ' . . : •.•'..' ' . . •';' . ..'••'. 4.8rief,.f6&tSofthecasearethat.on 06.03/2006 d-abc^t 4.30 am.'in the •mdpnmg^fecedsed Amoii Nishad'wdS frwelmg iri^he'-vehicle Swdraj AAazda, :h;;was^go|ng fr'orh Raipur.to -BilsaRur.Wie saicl Swarcij AAnzda dasheci •a,: ^ai^eSM^^or cr Pew^odih parm Hoiise 'cs a res^ which the ^•J^^^..:,:-.^-"'•"-. ."V.. ...-;.- .... "•••'.:":"•:•:•.,'• '•••'. -'....•'••". ^ .•'. •'.. . ' •.. '• •' .':'.'•:; •./'.' ".. ; . :,...''-.. deceaseffSst&ined seriQtis in.iuries on tiis person and died on the SBol'.^The -^ claimants; ;'whj:i£are widow/ mother, bpQther A sisters of the. decedSed ;respectivelyaidi^,lciain)e3;c6mDens!rfidn:to the'turre various heai:is..OEi3:hBejround fhe deeeigsed wasthe only earninq member mfhe fami ly and fheygtfeis^liotal ly:dietienderit gn.titm. ~]"r i, The trjbunal, after considerihg the: issues framed by it, allowed ths clam aoplication of the claimants T' respondent No.t to 4 herein anddti/aTdecf a compensationofRs.4.82.500/- undervariousheads. 6. Learned counsel for the aDDellant has assoiled the imDuaned aM/ard on the ground that the iearned tribunal err-ed in assessirig the m<inthly incQme of the deceased and therefoFe. the dmount uwarded to the claimants. is +06 excessive. He further argued that fhe insurance.policydidnotcoverthe risk ofthelabourerand it is an admitted fact that the deceused was travelirig in the said vehicie as (abourer and, therefore.'the tribunal w/as wrong jn holding that the irisurance com panv is Ijable -t-p safisfy the awaFd. . ^ 7, On the other hand, learned counsel forthecldirriarrts/responclentN^ hassupportedtheimpugnedaward.';: • 8. Vi/e have heard iearned counsel for the parties and perused the iropugned dward as also records ofthetFibunai below. 9. So far gs the argument of learned Gounsei -for the appeliant thflt the pplicy did not cover fhe risk of labourer is cancerned, we have perused the insuranee policy as well qs thestatement given by the representatiye ofthe msurance company who has admitted fhat risk ofthe labourer was coveped in the policytind therefore, weare ofthe opmion.thot thiS argutnento-f'jearned. counsel for the appellan't-insurarice comDanV is not sustdinflble. ^. 10. So far as the questioh of qiiantum is concerned; on carefui examination of the impugned award. we find thtrt' in absence pfdny speci'fic evidence the tr^bunal. has committed a mistoike ii} assessing the monthlyl jncome qf^he deceased ttt Rs.3,750/-. In such a situatjon, the.clainis.triburial oughttcj have .•£-£"::-'/:.".:':.-:~.•'....^ •: ."•,•".'-•:.:.'•::'-'' ,:.'•• .; ... . .';... -"';:/.'. •• assessed the income of the dececsed on the basis of hotional iriconne prescribed in the Second Schedule under Secfion 163-A of th®AAotor' Vehicle3Act,1988l.e. Rs.36.^QO/- p.a. . - . ; . • •|. 11. Further, in view of Pdra-32 pf the judgment of the Hon'Dle Supreme Court. jn the matter fsf SaHa Usnna ffmt.) ttttd others —vs-Detttt^Tpttiisooft Cbrsoroti^ a^ asoffj^r^<^ed m ffff^ ^F \:" . .. "• •." :•."" • ; .'. . -.:':'-..: •'•.•".:. ' • ' ".'• •-.;.' :: •'..; ' ':. - Suppeme Court has held that where the family of baehelor is laRgle^ deBendent on the income of fhe deceusedi as in a case where he ihas a^ [.: IsSi Ki : .°' ,f ^' RQShan/- u/idowed mpther ahd iarge number bf younger non-earning 'sisters or br-others, his per'Soridl: and li"ing expe"ses' be pestrained tp l/3r .flncl contribution to the familv wilt be'taken as two-third. the tpibunal ouaht to have deductecl l/3rd amount frorn the incoma of.the cfeCeased towards his 'personal expenditure. . tZ, 5o far 'os •tHe'dyesfion of multiplier is c6ncerned, the tribi.inal has cqi-rectlY appliedtliemultiDljer'oflS. ; 13. Thus, we assess the incoms of the deceQsed as Rs.36^300/- p.a. and after deductihg l/3cd i.e. Rs.l2,000/-,,from the incbme of the decea^^ dependency would cometo fe.24p00/- pA (360©0-12p^)and by mufrjfl ^^he annUaldependerfcyofRs.24flOQ/-withthefflultipiieFdfl5,fhetotalloss of dependency works out to Rs,3,60,OQO^-. Besides thi^, the claimants are - entitled to receive a sum of Rs.5^00/- towards funeraf expenses,:a sum of Rs.lO^QO/- to respondent NO.I& Rs.5,000/- edch?ta respondent NQS.S to.4 toiwards loss of love and affection ancf a sum of Rs,5,QOO/- towards iQSS^of estate, totaling Rs;35,000/-. Thus, the claimants, Have come entitley •I'o "eGeive a 'total sum of Rs.3,95,000/- as compensation fqr the' deaTh of deceased Amoli Nishad in the inotor accident, ' 14, For the foregoing'reasons, the appeaUs ailowed in part. The cldjmants shail now be entitled to get Rs.3,95,000/- as comBensation instead of Rs.4,82,5QO/- as awarded by the tRibunal vide jfflpugney award, akmgwrth: .. A' interest @ 6% frorh the date of application till the dctual payment is rnade bv the insurance company. Out of ,the total ampurrt of cpmperisatiori. Rs.lX)0,QOO/- edch shail be depqsited?in the •form of fixed depQSit in any nationaljzed bank in the namesof respond^nt No.2 to 4 i^.,Ram<T^ff^ Sukcharan Nishad i& Siya for' aDerjod offifi'een years. R est of fheamount shall be Daid to the ciaimants by depositing the Same m the saving •bank account of respohdent No.l-Smf, Sumrit Nishad. , i l5.Certified_co^as per Fules.'' ^', , '.^.'^ •—'SA- ~Sd/- ' l' :::'' : ;fl:';:;l::;.;:'''^ :N-K;A^?al l.M.Quddusl Jud&e '-cy~