IN THE HQN'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR rCHHATTISGARm M.A. fO No. 1 Of2007. APPELLANT :- United India Insurance Company, NON-APPLICANT N0. 3 Through Branch Manager, Korba (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS RESPONDENTS ....^^ ^^^^ ^ ^•1. Smt. Uma Bai, aged 30 years, wife ofLate Shyamlal I- ahre, ^ 2. Ku. Pushpa, aged 13 years, daughter ofLate Shyamlal Lahre, ^ 3. Ku. Hemlata, »gQd 11 years, daughter ofLate Shyamlal Lahre, ^ 4. Ku. Kanchal, aged 8 years, daughter ofLate Shyamlal Lahre, 5. Tukesh Kumar, agecl 5 years, son of Late Shyamlal Lahre, ^ Respondent no. 2 tc 5 being minor, through their natural guardian mother Smt. UmaBai, 6. Kawal Prasad, aged 65 years, son of '" > KartikRam, ^ 7. Kirtan Bai, aged about 55 years, wife ofKawal Prasad @ ^ All resident of Village Sonbarsa, Dongri, Police Station Baloda, Tahsil and District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) CLAIMANTS ^^. Ashok Kumar Sahu, aged 26 years, son of Kunaram Sahii, resident of Vijay Nagar, Dipika, Korba (C.G.), 9. Ramkewal Patel, son of Sukhiram 'Ae' ^mT'"7/^. Patel, resident ofNehrunagar, Balco Township, Korba (Chhattisgarh), NON-APPLICANT N0,1 AND 2 '^.-..- APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. ,J HI6H CQURT OP CHHATHS6AWH ATUSU.A^M MVISION BENCH HON'BLE MR. I.M.QU&&USI & HON*BLE WK. a/LAM MINMAJU&&IN. JJ. M.A. (cl No. 1193/2007 Appedant United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs ftesoondents Smt. Uma Bai A others ^*sent: . , ", / , •' ; , , , ^ . , Mr. H.B. Aganwal, Sr. Advoca-he wi-Hi Mr. P. Agarwal, Advocate for the o^peltant. ^r. S.C. Verma, Advocorte for the respondents No.l to 7. Mr- Kaj Awasthy, Advocate for the responcknt No»9. (OraB (Ist July, 201t) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. By woy of this appeal under Section t73 of the Metor Vehictes Act, 1988 (for- short the Act. 1988'), the appellant-Inajrance Cempany has chattenged the award dated 11.7.2(X)7 passed by leamed Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (for short the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Cose No.166/07. 2. The appellant had challenged quantum pcrt of the impugned aword <xi>d N1 thte regard permission under Section 170 of the Act has been 9rointcd te thc appellant. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are -rtiat on 5.5.2006 Sh^xmlal Ldire (since deceased) was traveling in the vehicle bearing rc^islration mjimber C612-ZE- 3376. Due to rosh and ne9li9ent drivin9, the driver of 1+ie sakt vehicl®|o®t control over it and the said vehicle has met with an accident as a reault ®f which said Shyamtal sustained grievous injupies over his head. He was admitted in the Makhija Hospitat Koriba where Ke died durhig tpeatment. .Report of -rtie inddent was lodged in the Police Station Baloda. The ctaimants, who are widow, children A paronts of ^he deceased, heve filed a claim application before the Claims Tribunal seekin9 compensa-tion to th®tune of Rs.32,25,000/- for the accidental death of the deceased on the ground 1+iat the dece<»sedwas the sote eaming member in the family cuid Ifiey were dependent on his earnin^s, ^ f "C' c^ 4. On 1+ie pleadings of the parties, the Claims Trlbunal haa framed as many as seven issues and after consictering materiat avaitdble on record allawed Gkiim application of the elairaants. awarded a'compensation of Rs.3,40,000/- <md fastened tiabilityon the appettant herein to pay compensatiofi. 5. We have heard tearned counsel for the parties wid perused the recards of the Claims Tribunal as also 1+ie findin9S 9iven in the impygned award. 6. In the instant case the Claims TriburKxl has aasessed the loss of dependency as fts.3,07,200/- and to reach this figure the Chims Tribunal has firstly ossessed liie oainual income of the deceased as Rs.28,800/- i.e.I^.2400/-p.m., deducted 1/3 towards persond expendRture of the dteeeoaed afnd thereafter applied multiplier of 16. Howevcr, we feel that method adopted by ^fce Claims Tribunal to asses the compensation is not proper. 7. In the matter of Sarla Vcnna (Smt.) and othcrs Vs. Dalhi Transport Corporation A anothw reperted fn (2009) 6 SCC 121 it ha< been held that where the deceased is between tlw age 9roup of 36-40 years, multylier af 1S would be applicable. It has also been held in Sarla Verma^s cfl»e (supra) 1ti<rt' where number of the dependent is more thon six. l/5th shalt be deducted for personal and living e^enses of the deceased. 8. Thus. if we deduct l/5th from the annuaJ jncmie of the deccnsed arKl ther^ift'er' apply muH'lplier of 1.8, as the Ctaims Tribunal has held that th®deceiased was between 35 to 38 years of age, the total loss of depCTdency woukl come to Rs.3,45,600/- (28800-l/5thxl5). Whereas, the Ctaims Tribunal has awarded total compensflrt-ion of Rs.3,40,000/- to the claimartts ar»dItierefore we cre of the opinion thot there is no scope of interferencc in 1+ie impuyied wwfd. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is dismlssed. No order as to C<?St.__^---> __ 1 Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge ^ Roiriian/-