IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH MISC.APPEALf C )NO. §4^ OF 2011 APPELLANT/ NON-APPUCANT N0.2/ """^c^ "'•^y ./•' ^%^ •••<^~'^<s' ./•• •^ .«••' RESPONDENT/ APPUCANT/ CLAIMANTNO.l RESPONDENT/ APPLICANT/ CLAIMANT N0.2 Kartik Ram, S/o Shri Kanwal Singh, aged about years, R/o village Kesla.Tost Rajagamar, Tahsil 6s District Korba(CG). Versus 1. Jailal Vishwakarma, aged about 45 years, S/o Shriram Vishwakarnia, Caste Vishwakarma 2. Smt. Madan Bai, aged about 42 years, W/o Jailal Vishwakarma, Caste Vishwakarma RESPONDENT/ NON-APPUCANT NO.l/ DMVER RESPONDENT/ NON-APPLICANT N0:3/ INSURER 4. .f'- Respondents No.l 85 2 are residents of village Korkoma, Tahsil 85 District Korba (CG). Bharat Lal Yadav, aged about 26 years, S/o Shri Durga Prasad, R/o Shivnagar, Korkoma, Tahsil & District Korba (CG). Divisional Manager, The New Iridia Assurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Transport Nagar, Korba, Tahsil 8s District Korba (CG). MEMO OF MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTtSSARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR.6UL4M MINHAJU&MN. JJ Appeljant Respondents M.<4. [C] No.946/2011 Kartik Ram Vs Jailal Vishwakarma & others Present: AAr. Ajay Barik, Advocate for the appelloait. AAr. 6. Mathur, Advocate for the respondent No.l & 2. Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate for the respondent No.4. 3. 4. L-F- ORDER fOraQ ith (4Tn November. 2011) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard on l.A. No.l, application for condondtion of detay. 2. Considering the reasons assigned by the oppellant in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the opinion that the appellomt has been able to explain satisfactor-ily each day's delay in fiting the instant appeal. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. The <ippellant-owner of offending vehicle, has fiied this appeal against the award dated 24.02.2011 passed in Claim Case No.153/08 by the leamed Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (C6) (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') partly allowing application of the claimcnts and fastening liabjlity on the appellant herein. 5. Brief facts of the case are that on 6.9.2008 deceased Ajay Kumar- Vishwakarma was ^oing towards Rajgamar from Village Korkoma in a tractor bearing registration numberC612-A-1006. However, due to rash and negligent driving by the drj^er of the said tractor, the dececised fetl from the so.id vehicle, pressed under the tyres and died. The claimants, who are 'parents of the deceased, have filed claim petition seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.28,60,000/- on the ground that they were dependenf on the deceased, who was the sole earning member in the family, and due to his death they ho.ye suffered loss of income. ^ /- 6. The (.laims Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed as many as five issues and ofter hearing the parties in the matter allowed ctaim petition of the claimants, awarded a sum of Rs.4,23,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. ond saddled the appellant herein witii the liability tosatisfy the award on the ground that the yehicle was plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy. 7. We ho.ve heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award as also the record of the Ctaims Tribuncl. 8. Perusal of the insumnce policy^shows that except one seat i.e. of •the driver, there'was no sitting capacity in the tractor-trolley, whereas the deceased was traveling in the tractor-in-question ond in such a situation, status of the deceased in the said vehicle would be of a gratuitous passenger. Thus, we are of the opinion that the Claims Tribunat has not committed any error in holding that the vehicte was plied in breach of insurance policy and exonerating the Insuronce Compony. 9. So far as the quantum part of the impugned award is concerned, on pemsal of the impugned award we found that in the instont case, where deceased was the bachelor, the Claims Tribunal has deducted only 1/3 towards personal living expenses, whereas as per decision of the Hon'ble -•-- Supreme Court in the matter of Sarlo Vermo (Smt.) and others Vs. belhi Transporfr Corporation & another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. in a case where deceased was the bachelor, 50% deduction towards personal expenditure of the deceased is to be made. Fur1+ier, considering the age of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal has applied multiptier of 17, however, as per decision of tiie Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) in a case where the deceased is a bachelor, «^ average age of the porents of the deceased will be considered for the purpose of multiplier. Thus, the proper multiplier applicable in the present case is 14 as the average age of the parents of the deceased in the instont case is 43.5 years. .<"' 10. In view of the above, if we deduct 50% towards personal and living expenses of the deceased froin his annual income i.e. Rs.36,000/- as •" ~.y.^ea!:t>, ^ 1 ^iSS11'sy assessed by the Claims Tribunal and thereafter apply multiplier of 14 to it, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.2,52,000/-(36000- 50%xl4). Besides this, since the claimants have lost a young boy of 20 yeoirs, they are also entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation for which the claimants are now entitled for is Rs.2,67,000/-. 11. In the result, the oppeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent that now the claimants shall be entitled for Rs.2,67,000/- as compensation in ploce of Rs.4,23,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. They shall also be entitted for Simple Interest © 6% p.o. on the awarded amount fr-om the date of filing of application till actual payment is made. A sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lac only) shall be deposited in a fixed deposit scheme of a nationalized bonk in the name of theclaimants for a period of five years with the condition of poyment on maturity to either or survivor. Remaining amount shall be paid directly to the claimcints in equal ratio. 12. The appeal is atlowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. 13. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- ^taha]ud&» Judge f^