Misc. Appeal N0(“£3Mf 20(35/ / APPELLALIE Eefemiant No.2 @SPONDENT Claimant Nal RESPONDENT Claimant N02 RESPQNDENT Claimant N03 RESPONQEHT Claimant N04 RESPSNDENE Claimant $16.5 RESPONDENT Clailnant No.6 RESPONDENT Claimant Na? RESPONTWEI‘IT Defemiallt Na, 1 £FFEAL UKDER 1§3g 1/ Sgt. Mamura Bai, 47 years. w —Ver$us — ' / 'Wdl o Late fwhwairi' Kumar Kmmoje. Shri Drupat Kumm‘. 2§ years, Sf o Late .Ashwmli Kumar. Slm' Rajhlmar. .21 yeam, S} 0 LatB Ashwalli Kumar. K11. KalzShalya Bai. if} yeajg. Df 0 Late Ashwam‘ Klimar. Shri Bhuneashwer. 15 yeafg, 3,! o Late Ashwm Kumar. l/é" K11. Plmhpa, 14 years! D] o Late Ashwani Kumar. V}/ $hri Eememt.‘ 12 years} 3/ o Late A$hwani Kumar. /A}I Efa Flail Paiari, Tailsil — Palari, Disatrict — Retipur {CLG.). /&1’ Shri Mahngcm Das Jangde, Sf o Shri Ramlal Jangde, Rf o Near Palari Re$t Hausa, Disstrict — Raipur (GAG). - Owner— x“ SEGTIQH’ 1?3 QE‘ THE MGTQR WEICLES £€T. N HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR DB: HON’BLE LM. QUDDUSI 85 PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ, M. A. No. 83 OF 2005 The New India Assurance Company Limitcd. APPELLANTS Vs. [RESPONDENTS I I! Smt. Mathura Bai and others f MISC. 1988 APPEALS UIS 1'73 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, APPEARANCE: Mr. Prashant Jayaswal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajay Mishra, counsel for the appellant. ‘ Mr. Vivek Shrivastava, counsel for respondents 1 to 7. ORDER (ORAL! (05.01.201 1) Per LM. QUDDUSI, J: 1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the award dated 14. 10.2004 passed by II Addl. Motor Accident Claims/ Tribunal, Baloda‘Bazar, Distt. Raipur (CG) ' in Claim Case No. 41/2000 on the solitary ground that the Tribunal has failed to consider the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Brief facts of the case as per the version of the claimants are that on 16.10.2000 deceased Ashwini Kumar Kaunoje was going to Raipur on his Bajaj motorcycle 4-S bearing ReguNo. M.P.23-M.A]9945. On the way, at the end of Palari village towards Raipur side, one Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing Regnno. M.P.23-M.'C/6206I which was being driven by respondent no.8 Mahangu Das Jangde from opposite side in x \ V ~w 1 99/ a rash and negligent manner dashed the Motorcycle of the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased was badly injured. His Wife Madhiua Bai also sustained simple injun'es. The report was lodged in the Police Station Palari on the same date i.e., 16.10.2000. The injuled was admitted in Government Hospital Palari for plimaly treatment. Thereafter, he had undergone treatment in M.M.I. Hospital, Raipur and Rajdhani Hospital and ulh'mately he died on ( 08.11.2000 in Village Palari on account of the injun'es sustained in the said accident and the information regarding his death was sent to PS Palari. Though We could not 11nd any permission u/s‘ 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and also we have seen that the owner cum driver of the motorcycle i.e., respondent no.8 with whom accident took place, has contested the case seriously but in the interest of justice, we see whether it is a case of contributory negligence and whether the amount of compensation has been assessed properly by the Tribunal. 4. The deceased was aged about 55 years. If his age is treated as 56 years, multiplier 9 would be applicable according to the Sarla Verma (Smt) and others 4:3. Delhi Transport Corporauon' and another (2009) 6 SCC 121. His monthly salary has been shown as Rs.5300/-. Thus the annual salary comes to Rs.‘63,600/—. In paragraph 3O of Sarla Verma’s case (supra), it has been laid down that where the number of dependent family members exceeds. 6, the deducn‘on towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/5‘11. In the instant case the number of \ \ \_ ‘Lm dependent family members of the deceased is 7, therefore, the standard deduction would be 1 / 5‘ But the Tribunal has deducted 1/3 towatds deductions which is against the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, if we deduct 1/5‘11 towards personal and living expenses that 1's Rs.12,720/-, the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs.50,880/- (Rs.63,600 - 12,720). The deceased was in the age group of 55 to 6O years, Therefore, looking to the age of v the deceased, if we adopt the multiplier 9 according to the multiplier scale given in the, table vide Para 4O of the Sarto Vema’s Case (Supra), the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.4,57,920/— (Rs.50,880 x 9). The Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier 8 instead of 9. Besides this, for loss of consortium to the wife and loss of love and aifection to the children, they are liable to be granted Rs.10,000/- (to the wife) and Rs,5000/- each to respondents 2 to 7 (Total Rs.30,000/-) and thus it would come to Rs.40,000/- for 7 claimants. In addition, if we grant Rs.5000/~ for loss of estate and Rs. Rs.5000/- funeral ‘ s expenses, the total would come to Rs.50,000/- under the other heads. If we add Rs.50,000/- to the total loss of dependency that is Rs.4,57,920/— the total compensation comes to Rs.5,07,920/- which the claimants would be entitled to receive from the appellant, but the Tribunal has only granted Rs.3,71,8S4/-. 5. We have perused the Lower Court Records and found that it cannot be a case of contributory negligence in any way, as respondent no.8 who was the owner-cnm-driver of Motorcycle bearing Regn.No.O23~M.C/6206 with Whom the \ / s/ accident took place had gone on wrong sido that is towards right direction and suddenly struck against the Motorcycle of the deceased. Therefore, we do not any force in this appeal warranting interference in the impugned award. So far as it relates to quantum, though the amount fixed by the Tribunal is lesser in comparison to the entitlement as calculated above, but since no cross objecn‘ons have been med we are not inclined to enhance the award of the f 7- In thC résult, the anneal is dismissed. No order as to cost(s). / ' Sdl- l I.M.Quddusi g g1 Sd/_ JUdQe i Prashant Kumar Mlshra _ , , ‘ Judge Rae