"2i Mtaws IN THE HIGH CQURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR MISC._APPEALrC1NO. S°)"\ /2011 MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THB^IOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 APPELLANT INSURER ^^" ^%?'^ T^-"'"y RESPONDENTS CLAIMANTS OWNER DRIVER Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through : its Legal Officer, 301, 302 Corporate House 169 RNT Market, Opposite Jhabua Tower, Indore (M.P.) VERSUS Diwas Ram Jolhe S/o Govind Ram Jolhe, aged about 49 years, >^ Smt. SukmatiBai W/o Diwas Ram Jolhe, aged about 47 years, Both are by caste - Satnami, R/o village - Hirri, Tahsil - Sarangarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) Rajpal Sharma S/o Ramsingh Sharma, through : Neetu Roadways - 3028, Beema Complex, Kalamboli, Tahsil Panwel, District - Rajgarh (Maharashtra) Pin^ode 410 218. Ta-ww Khan, agc Balau Khan S/o About 38 years, R/o village Jameel Colony, Balgaon, Balganwa Road, Amarawati, Police Station Amarawati (Maharashtra) APPEAL VALUED AT RS. 3.37.000/- COURT FEE Rs. 15/- 4. t/3)^)i /y^w. /e; S .ySSSSSS. '•\^ ..^f^ <f^a^ //•' i I j ^ ,^ mOH COIHEIT QF CHHA1TISQAHH AT BUASPUR M.A. (Ct N0. 594 OF 2011 APPBLLANT/ {mSCRERt R^PONDENTS Reliaiice Guueral lusui'auce CompanyLimited. Versus Diwas Ram Jcdhe aad ofliers. L£ APPEAL XJNDER SBCTION 173 OF THB MOTOR VEHICI.ES ACT. 1988 D.B.:Hon'ble Shri I.M. Ouddusi & Hoa'ble Shri Q. Miahaiuddln. 3J. Present; Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for fhe appellant. Shrl A.K. Athatey, counsel for respondents N0.1&2. ORALORDER (Ptussed on 05th day ofSepteaaber, 2011} Per I.BB. Ouddusi This appeal has been lUed by fhe appellant/ReUaiK« General Insui'ance Company Limlted against fhe impugned award dated 29-10-2010 passed by tlie AddttioDal Motor Accident Clalms Tribunal, Saraagarh, District IteigaA (for shoit 'Qie Clalms Tribunal') in Claim Case Na 16/2008, tn so far as It relates to quaatum part only. 2. The, appeUant/Insurance Company was granted permission on 05-03-2010 iinder Section 170 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act (for short ftie Acf). -•'"' 3. Brief facfs of fhe case are that on 07-08-2008 to (he eveniiig at about 07.30, on fhe high way near viUi^e Hlm, Sarai^arh-RalgaTh, the deceased KayaEam Jolhe was dashed by Trailor fTruck) bearing r^istratioa No. C.Q, 07- C/8433, yhich was driven by non-applicant No.3, ia a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which Kayatam Jolhe sustamed grlevous injuries and died on the spot Report of the incident was given In the Pollce Station, Sai'angarh, under Section 304-A of fhe IPC and a charge- sheet has been filed In fhe Court of Judicial Magi^rate, Pirst Class, Saraogai'h. 4. TIie claimants being l^al heirs of flie de<%ased flled a petition mider Sectlon 166 of the Motor Veliicles Act ^or short the Acf) before the Claims Tribuual daunJng a total compensaUon of Rs.83,00,000/- for the death of (he deceased. 5. Learned CIaims Trlbunal oa a close scrutiny of evidence led, materlal placed aiid subinlssions made by the parties, lias awarded a sum of Rs.3,37,000/- along with hiterest @ 6% per anniun from (lie date of appUcatlon tUl Its pff)?ment. 6. We have heard learned couiMel for (he partiesand perused flie I'ecords of the Clauns Tflbiinal as weU as fhe impugned award. 7. We have found that the Claims TWtainal taas committed manlfest en-or of law in deducting l/3ri towards personal and Uv'ing expenses fi~om the iacome of the deceased who was a bachelor. Learned Clatos Tribunal should have foUowed tlie law laid dowu hy Hoii'ble llie Apex Coui't ui Uie case of Sarbt Verfna.fSmt.) und otfc^-s -os- Dettvl Tlrun^port Co»y»ratioa ca'at cunotfeer; reported m (200^) 6 SCC 221 Ikat wheit Qjie claim has been filed by fhe claunauts where fhe deceased 1s bachelor % piaU) offhe income shdl be deducted tor pei-sohal and living expenses and fhe avecage age of (he parents wUl be considered for applylng (he niultiplier. Therefore, we have to calciilate the quantum aflB^i in fl-ie Ught oftKiejudgment ofHon'ble fhe Supreiae Coairt. 8. Siace (he deceased was a bachelcu- and his anaual income assessed by the Claims Tribunal was Rs. 36,000/- / therefore, after deducting *4 (half) af tlie income toweu'd8 personal and Uving expenses of the deceased, fhe anniul loss ofdependency comes to Rs. 18,000/-. Since the ^ge of the parents was 49 and 47 yeai's the average age of tiie parents comes to 48 years. Therefore, in ttie ease on hand the multipller of 13 would be applicable. After applyuig the multlpUer of 13, the total loss of depend^icy would come to Rs. 2,34,000/- (18,000 X 13). Beslde^ thus, ttie elaimants are entiUed to-get Rs. 10.000/- towards loss of estate ahd Rs. 5,000/- towards funa-al experBes. Thus, after adding (Rs. 10,000 + 5000) Rs. 15,OC»/-under atlier heads, fhe total amount of compensatlon would come to Rs.2,49,000/-. On thls amount, the claimants wIU be entitled to get slmple interest @ 6% per anni.ua fram fhe date of claim petitlon tiU its payment to fhe claiaiants. 9. Out of the above amount, Rs. 75,000/- each diaU be deposited in a flixed deposit In a natlonallzed bank for a period of slx years to the name of tlie claimants and fheir son Sho^iaram. Rest ofthe amount shaU be pald direcfly in cash to the claimants in equal proportion. 10. Penal interest imposed by fhe Clatos Tribunal was not sustainable and therefore, that part of fhe impt-^ied award Is set aside. 11. The Impugned award is modified to the abowe extenfc 12. The amount whlch Iias already been deposited shatl be adjusted towards fhe amount of compensatlon, menfloned above. ^•" 13. In ftie result, fhe appeal is allowed iii pai't to ttie above extent No order as to costs. —-—'~ Sd/- G.Minhajuddin Sd/- | ^ ^ judge I.M.Quddusi Judge