^ INTHE G'1ic ^ BLEHiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) I. A. (C) Ho.&'QyO of 2010 OM APPELLANT J-; s ^ ^y^.2. -••^St^"" !:. _ ,,. ••;^- "^6y ^" ^^•^^- ^ ^•^^-••"^ ^National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office No. 1, Naveen Bazar, Phooi Chowk, G.E. Road, Raipur Pin No. 492004, District-Raipur (C.G.), through the Branch Manager Shyamlal Dhiwar, S/o Tetkuram, aged about 43 years, Smt. Gend Bai, W/o Shyamlal Dhiwar, aged about 38 years, ^'.&. .*<•°' ,^" 6. -.-3s1' ?~ ihupendra Kumar, S/o Dhiwar, aged about 12 years, Ku. Janki, D/o Shyamlal Dhiwar, aged about 09 years Respondent No. 3 & 4 are minor, through legal guardian father Shyamia! Dhiwar, S/o Tetkuram Ail R/o Village-Kamrid, Police Station- Saragaon, Tahsil-Champa, District- Janj'gir-Champa (C.G.), at present Budhwari, District-Korba (C.G.) ^ 5. Laiit Kumar, aged about 20 years, S/o Kosmanda, Police Station-Champa, District-Janjgir- ;.G.) Primenet Giobal Limited, Firsf Floor, New Industries Area, Ring Road, i^ :.u. •o 3,10,1 W11SCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S. 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE HI»«;OURTOF CHHATTIS6ARH 4T BILASPUR Aooellant fte^pndents Appelkints ftespondents DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUISDUSI & HON-BLE MR.BJLAM MINHAJUO&IN. JJ M.A. (O No.830/2010 Nationol Insurance Company Limited Vs Shyamlal Dhiwar&others A iA.A. (O No.831/2010 Ntrt-ional Irsupance Compary Limited Vs Chamar Ran Dhiwca' and othera Mr. Sautam Khetrapat, Adwcate for the appellants in both Itie appeals. h\r. M.K. Bai, Advocate for respondents No.l &2'm AA.A. (C) No.830/10. Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi,Advocote for responderrt' No.6 in M.A. (C) No.830/t0. ORDER (Oron ff^ Juiy, 2011) I.M. Quddusl. J: 1. Heard. 2. M.A. (c) No.830/10, arising out of the Ckrim Case No.80/08, and M.A. (c) No.831/10, arising out of the Ckiim Case No.79/08, are behi9 disposed of by this common order as both these appeals have been filed against the common award dated 15.4.2010 passed by the leamed 2Iri Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC) Korba awardin9 compensation to the -hine of fts.3,78,000/- (S Rs.3,80,00)/- respectively flnd fastening liability on -rtie appetlant herein. The Ctaims Tribunal has also isawd adirection that in case amount of cempensation is not pdid wilhin one month, Ihe interest shall be payable © 8% p.a. 3. In -ttiese appeals the appellant had chaltenged only quontum and in this regard permission under Section 170 of •Hie Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been granted to •the appettant. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 318.3.2008 -the deeea^d persons atong wilfi o'ther persons were goin9 tow<u"ds Korba from Villa9e Komrid. When they reached near Main ftoad, Bhatudera, at -rtint time a Hyva •^' "'t: ^' .^' vehicle bearing registratwn number C604-6-2176, being driven in rash and negtigent manner by its driver, dadied ttem as n result of which both of them died on the spot. The ctaimonts, who cu'e parents, brother & sisters of the decensed in both the oases, have filed Two separote claim cases before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation te the tune of Rs.36,10,0(X)/- in both the cases under vcu'ious heads on the ground Ihat on occount of his iwttimety death 1'hey have suffered loss of income. 5. The Claims Tribunal, after hearing the parties in the matter and apprecwiting the evidence available on record, portially allowed both the claim applications of the claimants vide impugned award. 6. We have heard learned counsel for ihe parties. Wehave also perused the records of the Cktims Tribunal. 7. On careful exomination of the inyugned award, so far us it rekrtes to Ckxim Case No.79A)8, we found that the Ctaims Tribunat haa daiucted only 1/3 from the <uwual income of -the deceased tewnrds his personal livsng expenditure of the deceased, whereas as per decision of tto HoR'bls Apex Court in the mafter of A*nte Msrffw (Smt.) ewl ortuay -w- Oeffli Trwisport Corporation anel anortwr reporfed in (2009) 6 SCC 121. where the deceased is a bachelor, deduction towards personal and livin9 expenses of the deceased should be 50%. Further, muh'iplterof 1S has been applied by the Ctaims Tribunal, which is also not correct in view of law laid down in Sarla Verma's case (aipra) where it has been provided that in case where the deceased is a bachelor, averageage of the parents of •the deceased will be considered for the purpose of multipHer. •In the instant case, merogs age of the parents of the deceased is 405 years (43+38/2) and therefore multiplier of 14 would be applteable in the present case. ' 8. Thus, if we deduct 80% from the annual income of Ihe deceased i.e. Rs.36,000/-, as assessed by the Ckums Tribunal, and opply multiplier of 14, the totul loss of dependency would come to Rs.2,52,000/- (36000x50%xl4). Further, as the clnimant-parents have lost young boy of 20 years, •therefore, •they are entitted to get Rs.lO,(XX)/- each for loss of love <md affection. Other ctaimants i.e. minor brothers d sisters who are four in number, are also entitled to get Ra.S.OOO/- eadi under this head. The claimants arenlso entitted tu get fts.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.8,000/- for funeral expenses. Thus, the tolal amount of compensation for whteh the claimants are entitted for is Rs.3,07,000/- (Rs.2,52,aX>i-20,00(>i-20,000+10,000+5,00(Q. 9. In Claim Case No.80/08 also the Ckiims Tribunal has odopted the similar me-thod to fix the compensation and therefore, we propose to reassess •the same in tight of -the jud9ment of -the Hon'bte Supreme Court- in the matter of Sarki Verma (supra). Accordingty, if we deduct 80% from the onnuat income of the deceased i.e. Rs.36,000/- and thereafter apply muttiplier of 15, as average age of the parents of deceased in this case would come to 39 years (40*-3Q/2y, the total less of depemlency woiiU come to Rs.2,70,000/- (36000x50%xtS). Besides this, the ckiimant- parents are entitled to get Rs.10,000/- each towards loss of love and affection, as they have lost 20 years youn9 aon. Other claimants i.e. bro-ther and sister, are entitted to get Rs.8,000/- each towards loss of love and affection. The claimants are also entitted to get Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and fts.5,000/- towinrds funerol expenses. Thus, the total amount of compensation for whidi the ctaimants are entitled for is Rs.3,15,000/- (2,70,000<-20,000+10,000<-10,000*5,000) 10. Further, we feel that the penat interest imposed by the Claims Tribunal 8% in both -the ctaim cases is not proper cnd the same deserves to be set aside in view of the taw laid down by the Hon'bte Supreme Court in the maner of National Insirance Company Ltd. Vs. ICeshav BtAadur and others reported in (2004) 2 SCC 370 wherein the Hon'ble Supneme Court has held that direction in the awnrd for retrospective enhancement of interest for defoult in payment of the compensation togetter with interest payable thereon virhwlly amounts to impositien of penalty which is not statutorily envisoged and prescribed. 11. In the resutt; • M.A. (C) No.830/2008 (arishg out of Claim Case No.80/08) is altowed in part-. The impugned award is modified to the extent thari' now The cktimontsshall be entitled for o sum of Rs.3,07,000/- <is compensation in place of Rs.3,78,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The direction of the Claims Tribunal regarding payment of penal interest @ 8% in case the amount of compensation js not paid within the stipulated period, is hereby setaside. • M.A. (C) No.831/2008 (arising wit of Ckrim Case No.79/08) is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified to 1he extent that now the ckximants shall be entitled for a sum of Rs.3,15,000/- os compensation inpkice of Rs.3,80,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The direction of the Ctaims Tribunal regarding payment of penat interest @ 8% in case the amount of cempensation is not paid within the stiputated period, is hereby set aside. No order as tocosts. 12. A copy of this order be placed in M.A. (<:) No.83l/a)10._ Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge t^~- ^<*.ln"j