Partly allowed

Smt.Shanti Devi and Another v. Arjuni Chawal Udyog and Others

Chhattisgarh HC28 Apr 2010MA/93/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Division Bench allowed the appellants' claim for enhanced compensation from an insurance company for a motor accident death. The Court set aside the Tribunal's deduction of over 50% for personal expenses, recalculated dependency, and awarded a total of Rs. 1,65,000 including interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 1,65,000; Interest quantified at Rs. 5,000 on the enhanced amount.

Smt.Shanti Devi and Another Vs Arjuni… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

H!G}'§ SQURT^{OFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR} DlViSlON BENCH w

¶3

GQRAM: HON’ELE $HRI^{RAJEEVGUPTRCJ.} HQN’LE^{$HR§SUNILKHMARSINHA,J.}

¶4

4‘f{.

¶5

Misc. Appeai^No.93of2&03 Agpeiiants 1. Shanti Devi wife^{ofsateMadamKumar,} mmmants aged abcrui 55 years, occupatior; ‘ Househoid. ‘ 2. Dhananjay, son e§ Chandrashekhar Pansari, aged about 5 years. (Minor) ihrough naturai guardian grandmother - Shanti Devi, appe!!ant no.1. BGih are residents of Gujrati Colony, Dhamtafi; d§strict Dhamtari (CG) Versus ‘Resnendents 1 Arguni Chawal^{Udyog,ProprietorGanpat} ‘Ncn-c!aimants Lal Agrawal, son of Ramsingh Dayai aged about 48 years, resident of Baniyapara,^{Dhamtari,DistrictDhamtari} (C.G.) 2 The New india lnsuranEe Co. Ltd. Thakkar Bhawan, GAE. Road, Bhilai, district Durg (CG) Misc, Agaea!^{undefSection§?3oftheMotorVehicleAm} Present: Shri Awadh Tripathi and Shri Wasim^Miya, learned counsel for^{theappellants.} None for respondent^{No.1thoughserved.} Shrl Shree^{KumarAgrawal,learnedSeniorCounsel} with Shrl Anand Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶6

o a o E R m ream^April,2019}

¶7

The following order of the Court was passed by

Rajeev Gupta,^C.J,

)ix

‘the This is claimants’ appeal for enhancement of Compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident^Ctaims ‘the Tribunal, Dhamtarl (fat short, Tribunal’) vide award dated 24,12.2002,paseed in Claim Case No.2t§/2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.i8,40,000/—^claimedby appellants/ claimants; unfortunate widow and grandson of the depeased Madam Kumar by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death^{inthemotoraccident} on 18042001 ,‘the Tribunal awarded a^{totalsumofRs.1} 30,0001— as compensation along with interest @^7.5% per^annumfromthe date of filing of the claim petition^{titlthedateofactual} payment.’ 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the^{entireevidenceled} before it heid that deceased Madan Kumar^{diedonaccountof} injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 18.04.2001; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car bearing registration NoMP^23Ll9741, in which the deceased was travelling; as the said^{Car,onthedateofthe} accident, was insured with the New india lnsurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liabte to pay^compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal^againstthe award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/— per month and Rs.60,0001— per annum. By deducting Rs.3,0001— per month towards the personal expenses of the

¶13

deceased, the claimants’ dapendency was assessed at Rs.2,0001— p€r month and^{Rs.24,000i—} per^annum. By mult§plying the annua! dependency of^{Rs.24,0{30/-withthemuitipiierof5;the} compensation was worked out to Rs.1,20,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.10,DGG/— under other heads; the Tribunal awarded a rota! sum of Re.1,30,000!- as^compensation to the claimants for the death^{ofdeceasedMadanKumari} in the motor accident. The Tribuna! further directed payment^{ofinterestonthe} above amount of compensation^ofRst ,30,000/- @ 7.5% per annum from the date^{offiiingoftheclaim} petition till the date of actual payment.

¶14

¶15

Shri Awadh Tripathi and^{ShriWasimMiya,learnedcounset} for the appellants submitted that, the Tribunal has erred in deducting more than^{50%oftheincomeofthedeceasedtowards} his personal expenses; and in awarding low compensation of R31 ,30,000/— only. 7) Shri Shreekumar Agrawal; teamed Senior counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, learned^{counselforrespondentNo.2theNew} india Insurance Company^{Limited,ontheotherhandsupported} the award and contended^{that,asdeceasedMadanKumarwas} aged about 60 years on the date of the accident, the compensation of^{‘Rsi1i3Q,OOO/-awarded} by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances^ofthe present^case.

¶16

As the claimants themseives pieaded that. deceased Madan Kumar used to earn Rs.5,000!— per month^frommoney

,‘t . \ ;\ k "A

!ending and the income tax return of the deceased, copy whereof was produced before the Tribunal by the ciaimante themselves was aiso to the effect that the deceased was having annual income of Rs.60,000/-, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunai at Rs.60,0001— per annum.

¶21

x^‘The Tribunai certainly has fallen into error in deducting more than 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal^expenses. As there were onty two members dependent onlthe income of the deceased i.e. the deceased himself: and his widow claimant No.1 Shanti Devi, deduction to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased would be appropriate in the present^case. We; therefore, assess the claimants’ dependency at Rsi2,500/— per month and Rs.30,000/— per annum by deducting 50% of Rsi60,000/- per annum.

¶22

Considering that, deceased Madan Kumar was aged about 60 years on the date of the accident, the multiptier of 5 selected by the Tribunal is appropriate.

¶23

By multiptying the annual dependency of Rs.30,000i— with the muitiptier of 5, the compensation works out to Rs.‘l ,50,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/— towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,‘OQQI- for loss of estate; and, Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitied to receive total sum of Rst ,65,000/— as compensation for the deathw tVladan Kumar in the motor accident.

¶24

l ii;

¶25

Learned counse! for the parties submitted that with a View t0 avoid any possible dispute between the parties a‘bout the period^{forwhichtheciaimantsareentitledtoreceive} interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on ‘ the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this I appeal itself.

¶26

J3) Considering ail the relevant factors including the delay int disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal and the fact that insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantity the amount of interest on the ‘ enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.35,000/— at Rs.5,000I-. i4) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellantsi claimants for enhancement of the compensation is aliowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- awarded by ‘ the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1 ,65,000/- with further quantified ‘ amount of interest of Rs.5,000/— on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.35,000/—. a t5) Respondent No.2 The New lndia lnsurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.40,GGD/— (Rs.35,000/— towards enhanced amount of compensation⁺ Rs.5,000!— towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.35,000/—) before the concerning Ciaims Tribunal.

¶27

No order as to costs.

¶28

Sd/—

¶29

CHIEF JUSTICE

Smt.Shanti Devi and Another v. Arjuni Chawal Udyog and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Shanti Devi and Another v. Arjuni Chawal Udyog 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

State Vs Aman Singh

State of M.P. Vs Aman Singh

Sheela Shrivastav Vs Mohan Chopra

In the Matter of M/S Hira Steels Ltd. Vs Union of India and Others

Smt Nisha Sahu Vs R.S.Chouhan and Another

Rajesh Kumar Shukla Vs Xjavier Tigga and Another