Partly allowed

Smt.Daruna Devi Sahu and Others v. Kailash Chandra Joshi and Others

Chhattisgarh HC28 Apr 2010MA/463/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court reviewed a claimant'S appeal for enhanced compensation in a motor accident case. The court found the Tribunal's assessment of the deceased's income at Rs.1,000 per month was on the lower side and recalculated dependency to enhance compensation to Rs.2,26,000 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.2,26,000 with interest of Rs.5,856; insurance company granted three months to deposit the total sum.

Smt.Daruna Devi Sahu and Others Vs Kailash Chandra… — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2010)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR EWHSQN BENCH

¶2

C(TRAM: HGN‘ELE-$HRI RAJEEV GUI"TA. CJ. HON’BLE SHR! RAN$NATH SHANDRAKAR, J

¶3

MA. N0. 463 of 2993

¶4

Anpeilanis 1. Smt Daruna Devi Sahu, wife of Shri Dharampa: Sahu; aged abcut 22 years

¶5

’2. Durges Sahu son of Shri Dharamnai Sahu, aged about 2 years (Minar)

¶6

through mother : Appeiiant No. 1 $mt Daruna Devi

¶7

Ku Dipika, D/o Shri Dharamoai Sahu aged about 3 months (Minot) througt; mother : AppeHant No. 1 Sm: Daruna Devi AH residents of viilage^— Bakaruma‘ Tah Dharamjaigarh, Distt Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) Versus

¶8

‘i.

¶9

Respondents Kailashchandra Joshi’; son of Tularam Joshi, Bus owner, resident of Kapu, Tah .D'haramjaigarh, Distt Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) (Owner)

¶10

2 Naiharsai. son of Shri KisUnram Sarthi. occupation rive'r, resident of Patarapara, Dharamjaigarh, Tah Dharamjaigarh Distt Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) (Driver)

¶11

3 Manager, The New indie Insurance Company Limited, Branch Offtoe Raigarh (insurer) f

¶12

Misceiianeous Aggeai undTer Section 173 of the Hiotor vehicles Act

¶13

§resent Shri DR Sharma, Senior Advocate with Smt Swati Shukia, oounsei for the appetiante. None for respondents No.1 & 2.

¶14

Shri Prashant-Jayaswai, Senior Advocate with 8m Ajay MEshra, camse: far resmmdem Na 3

¶15

ORDER (zs‘h‘Egsril,²⁹¹⁹⁾

¶16

The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.

¶17

This is claimants’ appeal for enhancement of the §qmpensation awardeéi by the Third Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal: Raigarh (for short^‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 09512.2()(32, passed in Ciaim Case No.1 1/2002. 2) As against the compensation of 12,68,0t30f- ciaimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Dharampai Sahu by fiiing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 19.09.97; the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rsi 50,856l- as compensation aiong with interest @ 9% per annum from the dat'e of the fiiing of the ciaim petition tlii the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunai on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Dhrampal $ahu died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 10.D9.Q7; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Bus bearing registration . NolVlP 26/C-5348; as the offending vehlcie Bus on the date of the accident was insured the New lndia insurance Company ‘with Limited, the insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

¶18

¶19

4') As the respondents^have not filed any appeai against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finaiity.

¶20

The Tribunai assessed the income of the deceased at i j Rs.1,000./- per^month. By dedueting 1i3r° of Rs.1,0091—^towards expenses of the deceased, the ciaimants’ dependency personal 'was assessed at Rs§65l~ per^monthand Rs.7,992/— per^annum. :‘Bgr muitipiying the annuai dependency of Rs.7,992/— with the multiplier of^{18,thecompensationwasworkedouttoRs.1,43,856/«.} By awarding.further^sum of Rs.‘7,00t‘yunder other^heads, the Tribunal awarded^{atotalsumofRs.’l} ,50,856/—^{ascompensationto} the claimants^forthedeath of deceased^Dharampal Sahu- in the “The motor accident. Tribunal further^directed payment^ofinterest on the above^{amountofcompensationofRat,50,8’56/-} @^9%per annum' from the^{dateofthefilingoftheclaim} petition^{tillthedateof} actual payment.

¶21

Shri DR Sharma,^{learnedSeniorcounselfortheappellants} submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants‘ evidence about the income of the deceased and ln assessing his income at Rs.1,000l— per month only; and in awarding low^{compensationofRs.2,96,0GG/—only.} 7) Shri Prashant Jayaswal, learned Senior counsel and Shri Aiay Mishra, ieai'ned^counsel for respondent^No.3theNew lndia insurance Company^{Limited,ontheotherhandsupported} the award and^{contendedthat,astheclaimantscouldnotestablish} the income of the deceased as pleaded by them. The

¶22

compensation of Rs.1 ,5D,856/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper^{compensationinthefactsandcircumstancesofthe} present ‘ Case.

¶23

I n a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Trihunais shouid be just^and proper^{compensationinthefactsandcircumstancesofthe} case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a bonanza. 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,50,856/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pieaded that deceased Dharampal Sahu used to earn Rs.3,0DGI— per month as Bus Conductor, the evidence led in that behalf was not of ct'rnching nature. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased.

¶24

’H) Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.1 ,OOO/- per month in the year 1-997 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration.

¶25

Deceased Dharampal Sahu was aged about 25 years on the date of the accident. in the year 1997, the deceased could have easily earned Rs.50/per^dayeven by working as an unskilied labour. We, therefore, propose^{torecomputethecompensation} taking the income of the deceased at Rs.5G/— per day, Rs.1,500!per^{monthandRs.18,000/-} per^annum.

¶26

1.3) By deducting the usua! 1.13“ of Rs.18,990/~ towards the personai^{expensesofthedeceased,theclaimants’dependencyis} assessed at Rs.1 2,0UO/— per annum. 14) Considering that deceased Dharampal Singh was aged about 25 years on the date o?^{theaccidentandhiswidowshownto} be 22 years of age in the claim petition,^{multiplierof18selectedby} the Tribunal is appropriate. 15) By muitiplying the annual dependency^ofRs.1 ZOOOI—^withthe Fnultiplier of 18, the compensation works^{outtoRs.2,16,0G0!—.} The claimants are further entitled to receive a sum of Rs.10,000/'towards funeral expenses, loss of estate^{andlossofconsortiumto} the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled^{toreceiveatotai} sum of Rs.2,26,000/— as compensation for the death of deceased Dharampal Sahu in the motor accident. 16) Learned counsel for the parties submitted^{thatwithaView} to avoid any possibie dispute between^the parties^aboutthe period for which the ciaimants are entitied to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation,^{theamountofinterestonthe} enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself.

¶27

Considering all the relevant factors including the delay in disposal of the ciaim petition and^the present^{appeal,andthefact} that the insurance Company^{aloneisnottobeblamedfortheentire} delay in the matte‘rSWe quantify^the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of,..compensation^{ofRs.75,14'4'f-atRs.5,856/-.}

¶28

1. For the foregoing reasons,^{theappealfiledbytheappenants/} claimants for enhancement of the^{compensationisallowedin} part. The compensation of Rs.1,56,856/— awarded by the Tribunal is

¶29

3 enhanced to Rs.2,26,000l— with^further quantified^{amountofinterest} of Rs.5,856/— on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.75.144l—.

¶30

1'9) Respondent No.3 The New lndia insurance Company

¶31

“Limited is granted three months’ time for^{depositingthetotalsumof}

¶32

Rs.8’l,GfJO/'—. (Rs.75,1441towards enhanced amount of .

¶33

compensation⁺ Rs.8,8561— towards quantified^amount of interest

¶34

on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.75:144/—) before

¶35

the concerning Claims^Tribunal.

¶36

2U) No order as to costs.

¶37

Sd/Chief Justice

¶38

padma

Smt.Daruna Devi Sahu and Others v. Kailash Chandra Joshi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Daruna Devi Sahu and Others v. Kailash Chandra Joshi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Basant Bai and Another Vs Thakur Ram Sahu and Others

Saraswati Bai Verma Vs Murli Manohar and Others

Ishwari Sahu and Other Vs Sharad Kumar Verma and Others

Thakur Ram Vs JaiKishore And Others

Sumitra and Others Vs the New India Insurance Comp. Ltd.andORS

Narayan Lal Sahu Vs Ramlal Sahu and Others