BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OECHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Dlvlsioc Ssnd M.A.(C) NQ_^ /2008 AEP-ELLANT tfEFENDANTNO.3 ^-The Oriental Insurance Company, Korba through its ,../..i0./..6/3 Divisional Manager, Divisional presentsd hy Shri' ....^u^"<W\'& >~^ office, Korba (C.G.) a^aij............^-^-;^- VERSUS RESPONDENT ..N0.1 / CLAIMANT 1. RESPONDENT N0.2 DEFENDANT N0.1 2.. > RESPONDENT ,M0.3 DEFENDANT N0.2 3. RESPONDENT N0.4A <DEFENDANT N0.4A <ss Raj Kumar Banjare, aged about 31 years, son of Shiv Prasad Banjare, resident of Qtr No. 69 Vikas Nagar, Kusmunda, Distt. Korba (C.G.) Umend Singh son of Shri Phool Singh aged about 36 years, resident of Jhabar P.S. Deepka Tah Katghora, Distt. Korba (CG) (Driver of Offending Truck) Naresh Agrawal aged about 40 years, son of Rajaram Agrawal resident of Kudaripara, Bankimogra, P. S. Bankimogra Tah. Katghora Distt. Korba (C.G.) (Owner of Offending Truck) Smt. Devki Srivas wife of Late Baldau Srivas, aged about 62 years, resident of In front of Sringarika Sadan, Budhwari Bazar, Korba Distt. Korba (CG) RESPONDENT <:, 5,- N0<o 5EFENDANT N0.5 RESPONDENT ^.6: i;6 ,/E)EFENDANT N0.6 Satnam Singh sdn of Surjan Singh resident of Darri Road Korba Distt. Korba (C.G.) National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Manager, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 'X ff HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH: BILASPUR D.B.: Hoa'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, JJ. Appellant Respondents M. A.ICI No. 958/2008 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Raj Kumar Banjare and Others [Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988] Present: - Shri Ajay Mishra, counsel for the appellant. None for the respondents despite service of notice. ORDER IORAL) (Passed on this 09th day of May, 2011) PerI.M. QUDDUSI 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 07-01-2008 passed by the Additional Motpr Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba, in Claim Case No.31/2007, in so far as it relates to quantum part only. 2. The appellant had got permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 3. Brief facts of the case as per the version of the injured/claimant are that on 17-02-2005 he was going to Champa from Korba by traveling in the Jeep bearing Registration No.CG-12-ZK/0132 as a passenger. Near the Village Patadi Chowk, the non-applicant No.l/driver, driving the Truck bearing Registration No.CG-12-ZC/1030 in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite direction and dashed the X. J ;'f'^i I^BK^SSS^ % "fsaiwf jeep, as a result of which, the claimant and other persons traveling the jeep sustained severe injuries. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the claimant has become permanent disabled. At the relevant time the non-applicant No.2 was the registered owner of the offending vehicle (Truck bearing Registration No.CG-12-ZC-1030) and the vehicle was insured wifh the non-applicant No.3. 3. The claiman};/injured iiled a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Claims Tribunal for award of a total compensation ofRs.24,10,000/-undervarious heads. 4. 5. 'V Learned Claims Tribunal having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record assessed the monthly income of the injured/claimant as Rs. 5000/- and looking to the injuries sustained by the injured/claimant come to the conclusion that there was25% loss of futa-ire income i.e. Rs. 1250/- per month. Taking into account the age of the injured/claimant as 29 years, in accordance with the provisions of Second Schedule of Section 163 (A) of the Act, 1988, the Tribunal applied.the multiplier of 18 and thus awarded a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- towards future loss of income. In addition to that Rs. 10,000/- was awarded towards loss of eaming during the medical treatment for two months, Rs. 10,000/- towards physical and'mental pain and suffering and Rs. 25,000/- towards medical expenses. Thus, the Claims Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,15,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum, holding the non-applicants No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the papers available on record. -^: ^ II ^t, 6. None appears nor any representation is inade on behalf of the respondents, despite service ofnotice. 5. Leamed counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Insurance Company had filed its written statement in which it was mentioned that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the other vehicle i.e. Jeep, in which the injured/claimant was sitting. as a passenger, and that jeep was insured with the non-applicant No.6/National Insurance Company Limited. Therefore, the non-applicant No.S/Insurance Oompany is not liable to pay fhe amount of compensation. In addition, it was also mentioned fhat the accident occurred as a result of contributory negligence; therefore, amount of compensation may be determined according to the rado of contributory negligence. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record arrived at the finding that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Jeep, due to the accident the Jeep was completely damaged and relating to the same accident in two other claim cases the appellant Oriental Insurance Company had arrived at compromise. Thus it was not a case of contributory negligence and the other Insurance Company i.e. National Insurance Conipany was not liable to pay any part of the compensation. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the Tribunal has cominitted a ruistake in computation of compensation and incorrectly assessed the monthly income of the injured/claimant, when there was no concrete evidence about his income except the selfsame statement. \. '%, •i--^ES;: 8. Having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record we are of the opinion that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the injured/claimant as Rs. 5000/- per month, who was eaming his livelihood by working as a Painter with a private contractor. Therefore, we are of the opinion that when there is no strong evidence about the monthly income of the injured/claimant, his monthly income can be assessed as Rs. 3,500/- and thus looking to the injuries sustaihed by the injured/claimant and disability caused to him, we assess the future loss of income as Rs. 875/- i.e. 25% of the monthly income. Further, looking to the age of the injured/claimant as 29 years and as per the decision of the Honlsle Apex Court in the matter of Sarla Vernui (Smt.) and others -vs- Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, we are pf the view that the Tribunal should have applied the multiplier of 17, instead of 18. In this view of the matter, we award a total sum of Rs. 1,78,500/- (875x12x17) towards future loss of eaming. Rest of the sum awarded by the Tribunal i.e. Rs. 45,000/- and the conditions imposed by it shall remain intact. 9. Thus, we allow this appeal in part, set aside and modify the impugned award dated 7.1.2008 and reduce the araount of compensation to the extent that the injured/claimant is endtled to get the total compensation of Rs. 2,23,500/- instead of Rs. 3,15,000/-, which was awarded by the Tribunal, along with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the application. No order as to costs. ''•' "f Tumane Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge •\ Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge HilSSs'S ^vF^'^^"-'-*-^^ ^r:.-'-^' :i- ^s^^^ 'a»W*—M