^ ,1. c © .^1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. fC) N0. ^z^ /2009 1 B8R5S APPELLANT Non-ApplJcant No. 3 ^*^ ..^fS^J ^^ ^" RESPONDENTS Applicant The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through - Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office, Jagdalpur Main Road Sadar Bazar, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Smt. Aayasha Begam Usmani, Wd/o Late Bafati Husain Usmani, aged about 42 years, Caste Muslim, R/o Bhagwati Gali, Moti Talab Para, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) 2. Smt. Hafijan Bee Wd/o Aba Shaheed Usmani, aged about 70 years, Caste - Muslim, R/o Bhagwati Gali, Moti Talab Para, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) 1,{\ ^./ t \c^ Kumari Kaushar Phatima, Usmani D/o Late Bafati Usain Usmani, aged about 16 years, Caste Muslim, R/o Bhagwati Gali, Moti Talab Para, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) Through natural Guardian Mother Aaysha Begam, Wd/o Bafati Husain Usmani. Respondent No. 1 Jitendra Singh S/o Uday Singh, R/o Near Vidyoday School, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) (Driver ofVehicle) Nandkumar Bhadoriya, S/o B.K. Singh Bhadoriya, R/o Nayapara Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) (Owner of Vehicle) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT Non-ApDlicant No. 1 Non-Applicant No. 2 ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DB: APPBLLANT: RESPONDENTS: Hon»bleI. M. QUDDUSI Ss Hon'ble MANINDRA MOHAN SHmVASTAVA, JJ M.AtCl.No.S16/2009 The Oriental Insuraace Coiapaay Ltd. Vs. Aaysha Beguin & ofhers MISC. APPBAL UNDER SECTIQN 173 OF THE^MOTPR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Appearaace: Mr. A. K. Afhaley, counsel for fhe appellaat. Mr. Vikash Shrivastava, counsel for respondents 1 to 3. Mr. Aviaash Mishra, counsel for res^ndents 4 & 5. PCTLM.QUDDUSLJ, ORAL ORDER (29.04.2011) This appeal has been ^filed by fhe Insurance Coinpaay agaiast fhe impiigned award dated 04.10.2008 passed by fhe Additional Motor Accident Clauns Tribunal, Bastar, Jagdalpiir ia Claitn Case No. 15/2007 so far as it relates to quaatuia part of fhe award. The appeUaat has got permission u/s 170 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act to chaUenge fhe quaatuia ia fhe appeal, The claiinaats have filed cross objections for enhanceinent of fhe award. Brieffacts offhe case as per fhe version offhe claimants are fhat on 17.11.2006 deceased Bafati Husaia Usmaai was going to old bus staad from Pafharaguda to get his Scooly repaired. On fhe way at about 10.30 a.m., a vehicle bearing Registration No.C.G.17-D/259 (Mahiadra Scorpio) which was beiag driven by respondent no,l/ Jitendra Singh, suddenly dashed the deceased, as a result of which, he \ .<.^. '"'\^ '^. sustamed grievous iajuries. He was iniinediately brought to Maharaai Hospital, Jagdalpur where he died dunng fhe course of treatoaaent, on flie same day at 3.30 p.m. At fhe tixne of accident, the deceased was aged about 50 years; he was a Goveminent Serv^aat workiag as Upper Division Clerk m Forest Department aad was drawiag a monfhly salaiy of Rs.7394/-. The claunaats being legal representatives of ftie deceased have filed claiai petition for fhe award of conipensatlon to fhe tune of Rs.11,64,736/- on vadous heads. 4. The salary certtficate Ex.A-11 issued by Divisional Forest Officer, Sukina, shows fhe monthly iacoine of the deceased as Rs.8960/- includiag Basic Pay, D.A., Suraptuaxy AUowaace and House Rent AUowan^ce (HRA). The Sumptuary AUowance is Rs.100/- & H.R.A is Rs.160/-. Therefore, after deductmg Rs,260/- fronx fhe inonfhly incoiae fhe reinainder conies to Rs.8700/- per nionfh. We have considered to deduct fhese amounts because of fhe reason fhat fhe Suinptuary AUowaace aad H.R.A. is available only when fhe person was workiag at a particular place, but siace his famUy nieinbers were not liviag fhere aad were Uving separately, no extra payiaent was beiag inade by fhe deceased for fhat. Therefore, it would be proper to deduct SA aad HRA from his monthly iacome. If we mnltiply fhis amount by 12, fhe aanual iacoine coines to Rs.1,04,400/- (8700 x 12). Siace the deceased was married aad fhere are 3 dependents, l/3rd is to be deducted towards personal and Uviag expenses. On deductmg 1/3, the loss of aanual dependency comes to Rs.69,600/-. Since fhe deceased was aged about 50 years, niultipUer 13 would be applicable as laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in •Sarla VernwL (Smt^ -vs- Delhi Transpart Corporafion cmd emather (Para 40) reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121,. However, the Tnbunal has adopted raultiplier 11 which is on lower side, Therefore, on applyiag multipUer 13 to the aanual loss of dependency, the total loss of dependency would coine to Rs.9,04,800/- (69,600 x 13) whereas the Tribunal has graated only Rs.7,88,150/-. Therefore, it caanot be said % cS) ^iWlllNlKBi^^ that the amount assessed by fhe Tribunal for loss of dependency is excessive. 5. The widow of fhe deceased was einployed ia CoUectorate as a Clerk after his deafh aad she is getting her salaiy as well as pension due to deafh ofher husbaad. Therefore, wifh regard to cross objections, we are of fhe opiaion fhat considering fhe over all situation, fhe claiaiants woidd be entitied to get Rs.1,00,000/- more aad thus instead ofRs.7,88,150/-, the total loss ofdependency conies to Rs.8,88,150/-. Therefore, ia addition to the total coiapensation of Rs.8,13,150/- granted by fhe Tribunal, Rs. 1,00,000/- inore is to be added. Thus fhe total amount of com.pensation for which fhe claimaats would be entitled to Rs.9,13,150/-. The Tribunal has awarded 7,5% iaterest per annum if fhe aaiount of coinpensation is paid wifhia twro inonfh.s aad after fhe stipulated period, it has imposed penal iaterest @ 15% per aanuia, The simple iaterest has already been awarded @ 7.5% per aiinuni, fherefore, penal iaterest should not have been awarded aad fhat part offhe award is set aside. 6. In view offhe above, fhe acaount under fhe iinpugned award is enhanced to Rs.9,13,150/- which shaU carry iaterest @ 7.5% per aanuin fhrough out froni fhe date of flliag of fhe clami petition tUl fhe payiaent is inade. Accordingly, fhe impugned award dated 04.10.2008 is inodified. 7. In fhe result, appeal as weU as cross objections both are aUowed io. part. — Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Rao