GARH AT BILASPUR v. Sona Bai

(APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEISCLES ACTt CSB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. AaarwaL J.^ Present : Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate for qipellant. ShriPPSahu, AdvocateforrespondentNo. 1 &2. Shri Sourabh Sharma and Shri Aditya Shanna, Advocates for respondentNo. 3. ORALAWARD (Passed on 16.10.2012)

This is driver & owner's appeal against the award

19.01.2012, passed by the ChiefMotor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 74/2011 .

As against compensation of Rs. 10,86,000/- claimal by the imfortunate parents of deceased Tukesh Duruw by filing application uader Section 166 ofAeMotor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Act') for his deatfa in the motor accidsnt on 06.02.2011, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. /- along with interest @ 6 percent per annum 6'om the date of application till its aetual payment.

The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidenee led, held : tiie accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of TATA Magic bearing registration No. CG-05-F-0876 by its driver i.e. ^*^ appellant No. 1; Tukesh Dhrow, sitting in the offe&ding vehicle died on account of injuries sustained by him in the said accident; 1(" respondent No. 3/Insurance Company not liable for payment of compensation to the claimant as appellant No.2 i.e. owner of offending vehicle was guilty of violation of policy conditions; assessed and awarded aforesaid sum as compensation.

Leamed counsel for the appellant would submit 1fae amount of CQmpensation awarded by the Tribunal is shockingly on higher side which deserves to be suhably reduced.

On the other hand, leamed counsel appearing for respoadents supported tfae award impugned and would submit in tiie fects and circumstances oflfae case, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation which does not call for iDterference.

I have heard the learned counsel appeariag for the parties and perused tfae award impugned including records of Tribunal.

The facts that accident had occurred due to raA and negligent driving of driver ofTATA Magic by its driver and tiiatrespondent No. 3/Insurane Company is not liable for payment of compensation, are now not in dispirte.

The deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of accident whereas average age of parents is about 43 years. The Tribunal, taking into consideratioa income of deceased as Rs. 3000/- per au; montii i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum, deducted 1/3 of it towards personal expenses of deceased aad assessed claimaat's annual dependeacy as Rs. 24,000/-. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 10 and awarded Rs. 2,40,000/- on account of loss of dependency. The Tribunal farther awarded Rs. 2000/- on other heads and flius has awardeda total sum ofRs. 2,42,000/- to the claimants.

Even assuming in case of death of bachelor the deduction on account of personal e?q»nsesofthe deeeased should be 50 percent, the multiplier applied by fhe Tribunal appears to be on lower side. Further, tiie Tribunal has not awarded adequate compensation on other heads. Therefore, looking to every aspects of the matter, the amount of compensation of Rs. 2,42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be tenned as shoe kingly on higfaer side warranting intetferenee of this court.

No other points have been raised.

For the reasons mentioned hereiaabove, thwe is no scope of reduction of compensation awaided by tfae Tribuaal.

Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ^ Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Sahu