HIGH COURT OFLCHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR DB: HON'BLE I.M. QUDDUSI & PRA8HANT KUMAR MI8HRA, JJ, M. A.(C) No.1002 OF 2007 Vs. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 APPEARANCE Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, counsel for fhe appeUaiit. Miss Morisha Chhatn, counsel for respondents 1 to 3. QRDER (ORAU (04.01.2011) PerLM. QUDDUSI, J. 1. This appeal has been fUed by the Owner against fhe award dated 05.07.2007 passed by the Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir (C.G) in Claim Case No.94/2005 awardm^ Rs.7,93,000/- with iuterest @ 6% per annum. In case the \ APPELLANT Arul Kumar, son oflate Preia Kuniar, aged 37 years, Shakti Nagar, Gevra Project, Dipika, Korba(C.G) ; Vehicle Owner RESPONDENTS 1. Vaadaa Rai, aged 3 years, son of Nitesh Kumar Miiior, fhrough Raoiesh Chandra Rai, s/o Pujabhai Rao 2. Ramesh Chand Rao, aged 62 years, s/o Puja Bhai Rao 3. Sint Sharada Ben, aged 60 years, wife of Raiaesh Cband, all icsidents ofNaila; Ward No.5; TahasU Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G). 1 4. Ravi Raujaa Singh, son of Gupat Singh; Ratu Road, Ranchi; viUage Manas; Post Belwayas; Thaaa Dilara; Distt. Rohitas (Bihar) fVehicle Driver)__ •\. &^^^g£^v ''s,-^'' amount is not paid wifhia 2 inonfhs, ffae said award shall carry penal iaterest @ 9% per acmum. 2. Brief facts of fhe case as per fhe version of fhe claunauts are that on 04.3.2005, the deceased Nitish Kiuaar went to Korba Irom Naila on his Motorcycfe bearing Rega.No.C.G.l l-1552. In the night at 11 p.iu., while he was retuming to his place i.e., Naila, on fhe way at Jamnapani vffllage, fhe niotorcycle of fhe deceased in which he was sitting as piUion rider struck against a staaduig Dumper beanng regn.No.C.G. 12- ZC/2354 frora back side, as a result of which deceased Nitish Kumar and the driver of the niotorcycle naniely Sanjay Shanua bofh have died on the spot. The report of fhe accident was given. in fhe poUce Station Urga in fhe next momiug at 7.15 a.m. It is alleged that the said Dumper was parked on fhe middle of road aad siace there was darkuess ia the night, fhe Dum.per inust have glowing iadicator so fhat the vehicle cau be identified even in darkness. Accordiag to the claimants, the accident could not have occurred tf ftie offending vehicle bears any iudicator on back side. Therefore, the driver aad owner of the said Dumber are Uable for (he accident. The deceased was a Honieopafhic Doctor aad was earrung Rs.9000-10,000/- per monfh. The widow, son and parents of the deceased being tegal representatives made claun to the tune ofRs.20,40,000/- on various heads. Duruig fhe pendency of the appeal, widow of the deceased Sint. Annuben has died, therefore, her naiae has been deleted. Siace fhe offendiag vehicle was not insured at fhe tinie of accident, the name of Insurauce Coiapauy has also been deleted. -- •••& ^ '•'&.. /••y' '^ ^ jf £ ._ t 2; •^S3^^^., N ^ ^^^^^^ ^ %t-e^'^' 3. The learaed claims Tribuaal held that on 04.03.2005, tbe offending vehicle was parked negUgently ia the iniddle of the road wifhout there being an iudicator, fherefore, fhe accident took place ia which fhe deceased has died aud it is not proved fhat there was any aegUgence ou fhe part of the diiver of fhe inotorcycle namely Saajay Shanna who has also died in the said accident. Therefore there was no negligence on the part of driver and owner of the laotorcycle. The Tribunal has further held ttiat at the time of accideut, deceased was aged about 37 years and 11 nionths aud was eamiag Rs.6000/- per taonth. 4. It appeara that the deeeased was a registered xnedical practitioner ia Homeopathy and fhere was no evideace regarduig eaming of the deceased. However, the Tribunal has taken the montbly iacome as Rs.6000/- per month which is excessive, fherefore, we take it as Rs.5000/- per inonth and fhus fhe annual iacoine coines to Rs.60,000/-. Siace the deceased was niarried, one-third should have beeu tbe staadard deduction and as such the anuual loss of dependency conies to Rs.40,000/-. The Tribunal has held that the deceased was aged about 38 years & 11 monfhs aad applied multiplier 16 which seems to be on hj^her side. Accoriiag to the multiplier scale given ia Seirla Vermet (Snvt.) Vs. DelM. Transport Corpercitton tmd wwther Ipwa 40) reported in (2009) SCC 121, multipUer 15 shoiild have been made applicable. Thus the fotal loss of dependency comes to Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 15). Besides this, we graat Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and 'f' „ •' '•^^^ '~~iy^'?^ ?y 5. 6. afifection towards the xuinor chffld and Rs.50()0/- each to fhe parents fTotal Rs.10,000/-) aad Rs. 5000/- &r toss ofcstate aad Rs.5,000/- for fiuieral expenses which in aU coines to Rs.30,000/- under ofher heads. Ifwe add fhis aniouat to \':. .) . the total loss of depcndency, the total coinpensation coiues to Rs.6,30,000/- (Rs.6,00,000/- + Rs.30,000), which fhe claiinants are entitled to' receive fiojn- tfae appeUaat. Accoidmgly, the award ofthe Tribuaal tfaa-t is Rs.7,93,000/- is reduced to Rs.6,30,000/-.i Further fhe Tribunal has awarded penal iaterest @ 9% per nnniim afiter tfae stipulated period wliich also secnis to be uasustainable. Therefore, we direct that tfais award shall cany iaterest @ 6% per anTiiiTn fhiougb-out .froiii tbe date of the fi1mg ofthcclaim application tBl the payment is inade. tn the result, the appeal is aUoroed ia part. The impugned award dated Q5t11 Jtily, 2007 is inodiSed to fbe aibove extent. Tlie rest of the condittons mcatiioiied in fhe award of the Tribuaal shall remain in tact. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- prashantKumarMishra Judge Rao