i' c-r- IN THE HOWBLE ffiGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C) No:...; (APPEALVALUEDATRs 14.81.216 F-\ F 2009 APPEAL UNDER SECTtON 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT. 1988. APPELANT (NON- APPLICANT N0.3) 5o^('..^\ . m..-!"L'."r"&w^^-^T[ ' Office,_MadmaBmlding, Jail ^^w^.:y^^ k.*"—'"" ft-K- t^v g|B*. RESPONDENTS The New India Assiu-ance Company Limited, through: Its Divisional Manager, Divisional- OfEce, Madina Building, Road, Raipur, (C.G.). (APPLICANT N0. 1) (APPLICANT N0.2) VERSUS : 1. Smt. Munni Bai w/0 La,te Devrain Sahu, aged -40 years, t..: 2. Pawan Kumar S/0- Late (Oeoram Sa^S Aged 26 Years, (APPLICANT N0.3) :3. Grirish Kumar S/0 Late Deoram Sahu, Aged 19 Years, AU are R/0- viUage- Borid, P.S.- Rajim, Distict- Raipur (C.G.). At present-Mana Basti, P.S.-Mana Camp, Raipur (C.G.) (NON-APPLICANTNO.l) (i_-^ :4. Hirdesh Kumar Yadav S/0 Lilu Ram, Aged- 41 years. R/0-01d Ravan Bhata, Distt.- Mahasamimd (C.G.) (Driver) (NON-APPLICANT N0.2) 9— 5. Shankar Charan Madle S/0 Prem Nath Madle R/o- Satnami Para, Fingeshawar,P.S. • Rajim Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (owner) ^^^^^^^iS^i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR M.AJCI No.224/2009 Aopellant : The New India Assurance (Non-Applicant No.3t Company Limited. Versus Resuondents : Smt. Munni Baiand others. DB:- HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR. JJ PRESENT:- " - " —-----—- - Shri Dashrath Gupta for the appellant. ShriM.K.Bhaduri'for respondents/applicants No. 1 to3. Shri Suresh Tandon for resppndents No. 4 & 5. ORAL ORDER (29.11.2010) Per N.K. Agarwal, J. ........ Heard. 2. This is insurer's appeal against the award dated 26.11.2008 passed in claim case No. 51/2008 by 10thAdditibnal Motor Accidenfs Claims Tribunal, Raipur whereby and whereunder an amount of.Rs.14,81,216/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants. 3. Brief facts, in a nutshell are that on fateful day of 31.05.2008 at about 3.00 p.m. the Mini Bus bearing No. C.G. 06/Z A/0151, which was being driven by its driver / respondent No.4 in a rash and negligent manner dashed Devram, who was going on mofor cycle and caused his instantaneous death. 4. In the present case, it is not in dispute thatrespondent No.5 is the owner and the appellant is insurer of the said offending Mini Bus. . 5. On account of death of Devram, claimants,. being legal representatives of the deceased, filed a claim petition under ^ ~x 'a ii%1 ^•.-......^'•// ^•••.... <@) ^ -^ Section 166 of the M.V. Act seeking compensation of Rs.28,00,000/- on various heads. It was pleaded therein that the deceased was working as Cashier in Union Bank, Mahasamund Braneh and was aged 45 years, at the time of accident. He was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. 6. Per contra, respondents No. 4 8s 5 denied the averrrients made in claim petition. It was specifically denied that the accident occurred not on the fault of driver but on the fault of the .deceased and the driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence. It was also pleaded that on fhe date of incident, since the said offending vehicle was insured with the appellant, therefore, the appellant/insurance company is wholly Uable for paymenf of compensation. 7. The. appellant/insurance company also filed its written statement denying entire averments made in claim petition. It was specifically pleaded thaf the deceased was not holding valid driving licence and the motoreycle was being driven in breach of policy CQndition; insurance company of motor cycle was not impleaded as party; there. was contributory negligence on the part of both the drivers, therefore, the accident occurred and the driver of said offending vehicle was also not holding a valid and effective driying licence, and therefore, the appellant is not responsible. 8. . All the parties led their evidence before the leamed Claims Tribunal. 9. Learned Claims Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the submissions made, evidence led and material plaeed, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,81,216/- to the claimants with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing claim petition till its realization. It is this order, which is under challenge by the appellant / insurance company by way of Section 173 oftheM.V. Act. . . ' : ' " :. ' ' J 10. Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant / insurance company has assailed the impugned award on the ;round that the amount of compensation of Rs.14,81,216/- is on higher side and the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the facta-lm of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. 11. On the other hand, Shri M.K.Bhaduri, leamed counsel for respondents No.l to 3 and Shri Suresh Tandon, learned counsel for respondents No. 4 85 5 supported the impugned award. 12. We have perused the award impugned and records of the learned Claims Tribunal. 13. Based on the appreciation of evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal has held that the deceased was aged 46 years at the time of accident and was getting salaiy of Rs. 14,079/- per month in the capacity of Cashier-cum-Clerk in Union Bank of India, Branch Mahasainund. The Tribunal-fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.14,079/- per month and Rs.1,68,948/- per annum. After deducting l/3Td towards personal expenses of the deceased, amount of Rs.1,12,632/- was worked out towards loss of annual income. Looking to the age of the deceased as 46 years, the Tribunal applied multiplier of 13 andawardedRs. 14,64,216/- as compensation towards loss of dependency, after rejecting contention of the insurance company regarding contributory negligence. By adding Rs.17,000/- under other heads, the total compensation was worked out to Rs.14,81,216/-. The leamed Claims Tribunal has, in fact, not assessed the income of the deceased properly inasrauch as the future prospects were not considered. Looking to the number of claimants, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly deducted l/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and in view of the decision of £he Apex Court in the matter of Smt. Sarta Verma andOthers v. Delhi Transport Corporation andAnother, 2009 (2)T.A.C. 677 (S.C.) wherein multiplier of 13 is used when the deceased was in the age ::^ -^ *.-aaa! 8 3 ff V.--/S "'sy 4 \ar' "-f group of 40 to 50, multiplier of 13 has rightly been applied by the leamed Tribunal. 14. For the foregoing reasons, in our considered opinion, the learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned award. We see no reason to interfere in the impugned award. 15. Consequently, the appeal of insurer, being devoid of merit is liable to be and is dismissed. No order as to costs. - f.K. Agrawa! Judge Sd/- R.E,. Jhanwar Judge MSS: