^? IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.I M.A. (Cl NO.^.L../2007 MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 APPELLANTS NON-APPLICANTS ^OWNER & DRIVER -^.•^. " P. Sameshwar Rao aged about 43 years S/o P. Somal R/o Village Near Gudhakhu Factory of Shankar Agrawal, Occupation Contractor, Vehicle Owner, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pawan Kumar Nishad Aged about 42 years S/o Jagan Nishad Occupation Driver R/o Nayapara, Chuchuhiapara Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS f BESPONDENTS APPLICANTS/CLAIMANTS 1. Smt. Rahi Singh Aged about 52 years W/o Late Yashwant Singh Rakesh Kumar Aged about 31 years S/oLate Yashwant Sing 3. Rajesh Kumar ^^^' Aged about 33 years S/o Late Yashwant Singh ^ R/o Village Mulmula, ^ Tahsil Janjgir \.l District Janjgir-Champa (C.©.) Claim in Appeal for setting aside the award valued at Rs. 1,'45,000/-, (Court fee affixed Rs. 15/-) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M.A. (C) No. 991 of 2007 ^ Appellants P. Sameshwar Rao & another Versus Respondents Smt. Rahi Singh & others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 8& Hon?ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ Shri Sanjay S. Agarwal, Advocate with Shri Vivek Shrivastava, Advocate for the appellants. Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this25th day ofApril, 2011 ) ?. Per I. M. Quddusi, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants (owner and driver) on the ground of liability as well as quantum against the impugned award dated 11.5.2007, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir in Claim Case No, 106/2005, awarding a sum ofRs. 1,45,000/- to the claimants along with interest. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the lower Court record as well as the findings given in the impugned award. 3. Brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 10.2.2004 deceased Yashwant Singh was going on his bullet motorcycle, bearing registration No. H.R. 29-G/0732 from Podhi Akaltara to Mulmula, along with his cousin brother Vikas Singh. On the way a dumper, bearing registration No. C.G. 10-A/0113, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the non-applicant No.l (Pawan Kumar Nishad) dashed the motorcycle. As a result of this accident Yashwant Singh, who was driving the motorcycle as well as his cousin brother Vikas Singh, who was sitting as pillion rider, received grievous injuries. Later on during the treatment Yashwant Singh succumbed to the injuries. The matter was reported in the Police Station - Sarkanda, Bilaspur in regard to death of the deceased. 4. The report of the accident was lodged by Lal Singh Kshatriya in the Police Station Pamgarh. It is alleged that though the accident was caused by the vehicle, bearing registration No. C.G. 10- A/0113 but the police had seized another vehicle bearing registration No. C.G. 10-ZB/0413. 5. The claimants, being widow and two sons of the deceased, filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 31,00,OOO/- under various heads. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, having regard to the facts and evidence on record held that the accident was caused due to the vehicle, bearing registration No. C.G. 10-A/0113 and the same was not insured. Further, taking into consideration the yearly income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- and assessing the yearly dependency as Rs. 10,000/-, looking to the age of the deceased as 56 years and in accordance with the second schedule of Section 163-A of the Act, the multiplier of 8 was applied. Thus, Rs. 80,000/- has been awarded towards loss of dependency. In addition to that Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded towards funeral expenses,Rs. 20,000/- towards consortium to the widow and love & affection to the children and Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, learned Tribunal has held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,45,000/- along with simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from^ the date of the application i.e. 4.3.2005 till the payment is made. It has been further directed that if the amount of compensation is not deposited within two months the amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 7. On close scrutiny of the evidence and inspection it was found that it was the vehicle bearing registration No. C.G. 10-A/0113, by which the accident was caused. Therefore, there is no scope to say that the accident had taken place from the other vehicle, bearing registration- No. C.G. 10-ZB/0413. It is evident that since the appellant is the owner of both the vehicles but as the'vehicle No. C.G. 10-A/0113 was not insured and the vehicle No. C.G. 10- ^ I Z^ ZB/0413 was insured, therefore, just to save him from payment of liability of compensation the plea has been taken, which is contrary to the result of the investigation. Therefore, this plea is not valid and the same is not available to the appellant. 8. Having regard to the facts situation and the law laid down by Hon^ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another1 we are of the opinion that after assessing the yearly dependency as Rs. 10,000/-, looking to the age of the deceased as 56 years, the multiplier of 9 should have been applied by the Tribunal. Therefore, applying the multiplier of 9, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 10,000 x 9 = 90,000/- and accordingly we award this sum of Rs. 90,000/- as compensation. Besides this, under the other heads, we award Rs. 5000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 5000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 5000/- towards loss of consortium to the widow and Rs. 10,000/- for loss of love and affection to two children, the total ofwhich comes to Rs. 25,000/-. Thus, we award a total sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- as compensation to the claimants towards loss of dependency and under other heads. Rest of the conditions imposed by the Tribunal shall remain intact. 9. In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award dated 11th May, 2007 is modiflefd and the amount of compensation is reduced to the above extent. Rest of the conditions of the award shall remain intact. No order as to costs. 10. If the amount awarded by the Tribunal has been paid it will be open for the Insurance Company to recover back the difference of amount from the claimants. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge \.t (2009)68cc 121 ij—^ o^.