Dismissed

Karamjeet Kaur and Ors. v. Dindanath Mishra and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC15 Mar 2010MA/777/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Special Leave Petition appeal against a claim award in a motor accident case was dismissed. The appellant widow and minor son sought enhancement of compensation, arguing against a finding of contributory negligence. The court held the award of Rs.1,90,000 exceeded the calculated amount even after deductions for negligence.

What did the court decide?

The appeal for enhancement of compensation was dismissed.

Karamjeet Kaur and Ors. Vs Dindanath Mishra and… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2010)

¶1

.-Mv

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Raieev Gupta, C.J. & Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.

¶5

M.A. No. 777 of 2000

¶6

Karamjeet Kaur & Another

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Dinnabath Mishra & others

¶9

JUDGMENT

¶10

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA .3

¶11

For consideration
Q/
i Sdl—
i Sunn Kumar Sinha
V/ Judg
r,
Sdl-
Chief Justice

¶12

Post for Judgment :/J€/O3/201 0
i Sd/—
Sunil Kumar Sinha
/ Judge
/

¶13

¶14

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶15

CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. & Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha J.

¶16

M.A. No. 777 of 2000

¶17

APPELLANTS 1. Karamjeet Kaur, W/o Late Shri Claimants Gurnam Singh, aged about 26 years, through Ujagar Singh, son of Mokal Singh, resident of Tikarapara Dhamtari, District Raipur 2. Somran Kaur S/o Late Gurnam Singh, aged about 5 months, through Mother Karamjeet Versus RESPONDENTS Dinnabath Mishra (wrongly mentioned as Dindabath Mishra) S/o R.K. Mishra, New Market (Vehicle Owner M.P.-259321), Bacheli, District Bastar (M.P.) (Now^C.G.)“ 2. United Insurance Company Branch ltwari Bazar WardL Jagdaipur 3. Trilok Singh son of Swarnsingh, resident of Bharatmata Schooi Ke Pass L.l.G. Coiony Tatabandh Raipur (Vehicle^{OwnerM.P.23-B/2128)} 4. Oriental insurance Company Branch Raipur, M.P. (Now C.G.) 5. Surana Singh S/o Baryam Singh, aged 6O years 6. Smt. Sukdeo Kaur, W/o Surana Singh, aged 55 years Respondent No. 5 to 6 residents of Kumharpara Ward Kondagadn, District Bastar, M.P. (Now C.G.)

¶18

MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988

¶19

Appearance:

¶20

Mrs. Anju Ahuja & M r. P.M. Sriwas, Advocates for the ~ appellants/claimants. None for respondents 1 & 3. Mr. Abhishek Sinha & Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocates for respondent No.2. Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate for respondent No. 4.

¶21

Mr. Vikas Pradhan, Advocate for respondents 5 & 6.

¶22

¶23

M.A. N0. 777 of2000

¶24

JUDGMENT ( l6.-03.2010)

¶25

’Following

¶26

judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.

¶27

(1) The appellants, unfortunate widow and minor son of deceasedGurnam Singh, have med this appeal for enhancement of amount of ’ compensation awarded in Claim Case No. 01/98 by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur (Bastar) vide award dated 18m September, 1999.

¶28

(2’) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:-

¶29

IDeceased-Gurnam

¶30

Singh was the driver of truck No. M.P. 23—B/2128. He died in the motor accident on 8,8.97. The appellants/claimants filed a Claim Petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,62,000/—. According to the pleadings in the claim petition, the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of truck No. MP. 25/9321 by its driver. The appellants/claimants pleaded that the said truck came from the opposite direction and dashed against the truck of the deceased. Drivers of both the trucks died in the accident.

¶31

The Tribunal recorded the finding that it was head-on collision and the casewas one of contributory negligence and the drivers of both the vehicles had contributed to the extent of 50% each.

¶32

The appellants/claimants had further pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.1,800/per month and he was also getting^{dailyallowanceof} Rs.50/-. However, the Tribunal accepted the income of the deceased as Rs.1,800/- per month and it further added Rs.100/— per month which the deceased would be getting by increase in his future income. The Tribunal thus assessed monthly income of rupees as 1,900/—. By deducting Rs.800/— towards the personal^{expensesofthedeceased,themonthlydependencywas}

¶33

¶34

MA. N0. 777 of 2000

¶35

held as Rs.1 ,100/— and the annual dependency was worked out to Rs.13,000/-. By applying multiplier of 13 to the said annual dependency, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 1,69,000/-. By adding a further sum of Rs.21,000 under other heads, the total amount of compensation was worked out to Rs.1,90,000/-. The Tribunal held that the appellants and respondents 5 & 6 (parents) were entitled to receive the said amount of compensation along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and owners &^lnsurance Companies of both the vehicles were liable to pay it in ratio of 50% each.

¶36

(3) Smt. Anju Ahuja, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, argued that the Tribunal wrongly held that it was a case of contributory negligence. She also argued that the amount of compensation has not been properly^assessed.

¶37

(4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed these arguments. They argued that even after holding the case^tobeone of contributory negligence, the Tribunal has not deducted^50%fromthe total amount of compensation awarded to the appellants.

¶38

(5) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties^atlengthand have also perused the records of claim case.

¶39

(6) Admittedly, the insurers have not filed any appeal and they^have also not filed cross-objections against the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal.

¶40

(7) So far as finding of contributory negligence ls^{concerned,wedonot} find any infirmity in the said finding. We have gone^through the^evidence \ of Ujagar Singh (AW—2) who has been examined as an eye—witness.^Heis \ \

MA. N0. 777 of 2000

‘

the father of appellant No. 1. He deposed that he was also along with his vehicle behind the vehicle of his son-in—law — Gurnam Singh. The accident occurred near a toll-tax barrier when truck No, M.P. 25/9321 came from the opposite direction and dashed against^{thetruckofhisson-} invlaw. The accident occurred on account of rash and negligent^drivingof the driver of truck No. M.P. 25/9321. The^{driversofboththevehiclesdied} on the spot. Ramcharan Baghel (AW-3) deposed that two First Information Reports were lodged for the said accident. One was F.l.R. No. 317/97 and other was F.l.R. No. 318/97. Both F.l.Rs.^{wereu/s304—A} IPC. He appeared in the Court along with case diaries. F.l.R. No. 317/97 has been proved as Ex.-P/4-A. The contents^{oftheF.l.R.wouldshowthat} the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles. The copy of the F.l.R. was tiled by the appellants. On due appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal found that it was a case of contributory negligence. We^donot find any infirmity in such finding^{recordedbytheClaimsTribunal.}

¶46

(8) Admittedly, when the Tribunal recorded a^findingthat it was a case of contributory negligence and the drivers of both the vehicles were responsible to the extent of 50% each, then^{theTribunaloughttohave} deducted 50% of the entire amount of compensation^worked out, which has not been done in this case. Smt. Anju Ahuja argued^{thattheTribunal} ought to have assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/— per month and Rs.24,000/— per annum and it ought to have deducted 1/3” towards personal expenses of the deceased^and some^{highermultiplier} would have been used. Even if we take the income of the deceased^as _.\ Rs.2,0QOIper month and Rs.24,000/— per annum, that would hardly W

M.A. No. 777 of 2000

V t

make any difference in the amount already awarded to the appeHants. After deducting 1/3” towards the persona! expenses of the deceased from Rs.24,000/-, the dependency would come to Rs.16,000/. Even if we use the highest muitipiier of 18, the compensation wouid come to Rs.2,88,000/—. After adding Rs.21,000/— under other heads which has been awarded by the Tribunal, the total amount of compensation would come to Rs.3,09,000/—. lf we deduct 50% of this amount on account of contributory negligence of the deceased, the compensation would come to Rs.1 ,54,500/—. Whereas, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,90‘OOO/- which is more than this amount.

¶51

(9) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the amount of Compensation awarded to the appellants/claimants.

¶52

(10) The appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed.

¶53

(1¹⁾ There shall be no orders as to the cost. ’ i Sd/— Sunil Kumar Sinha SdlChief Justice Judge /

Karamjeet Kaur and Ors. v. Dindanath Mishra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karamjeet Kaur and Ors. v. Dindanath Mishra and Ors.

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

Parminder Singh and Ors. Vs Rakesh Kumar Yadav and Ors.

The State of M.P. and Anr. Vs Nand Kumar Dubey, and Anr.

Jiwan Lal Rajak and Another Vs State of Cg and Others

Atlanta Limited Vs Chairman-Cum-M.D. S.E.C.L. and Ors.

Smt. Kamlesh Devi Vs Regional Transport Authority and Anr.

Smt Uttra and Others Vs Abubakar Khan and Others