Dismissed

Ravi Kumr Vaishnav and Anr. v. Sushilabai Yadav

Chhattisgarh HC2 Feb 2010MAC/1102/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an owner's appeal against the award of compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the death of the respondent's son in a motor accident. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's award as just and proper.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

What the court decided

Ravi Kumr Vaishnav and Anr. Vs Sushilabai Yadav — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

^L—'
iiifll&
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
^2JJ0:' ^JJ°:<
M.A.: NO. 2^07
APPELLANTS : 1. Ravi Kumar Veshanav @
.c^"
Raja, S/o -Ramlochan
Veshanav,
Aged - 2 lyears,
R/o - in front of Nutan Choak
Indira Vihar Gat, Thana -
Sarkanda, Tah. & Dist. -
Bilaspur.
2. Ramlochan Veshanav,
S/o - Manbodh Das
Aged- 55 years,
R/o - in front of Nutan Choak
Indira Vihar Gat, Thana
......?%
Sarkanda, Tah. 8s Dist.
^ff
Bilaspur (C.G.).
^' YERSUS
\2U5Hlt.A6Ai
RESPONDENT :- HHti^fcy- Yadav
W/o Santosh Lal,
Aged About 38 Years,
R/0 Nutan Chaok Thana
Sarkanda Tah. 85 Dist.
Bilaspur (C.G.)
APPLICATION FOR UNDER SECTION 17^) OF THE MOTOR
^^M^^EHICLE ACT 1988 fTHER AFTER CALLED THE ACT FOR
7 APARNA V^THANCMMENT OF THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION
IND MODEFICATION REGARDING APORTIONMENT QF
.:-57t^'•^f^^,^A
^•^••C^.h'^^ AMOUNT OF COMPENSATIQN

¶3

HJGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ArgLLASPUR

¶4

.A.rCtNo.1102 of2607

¶5

APPELLANTS

¶6

Ravi Kumar Veshnav @ Raja & another

¶7

Versus

¶8

RESPONDENT Sushija Baj Yadav

¶9

APPEAL U/S 173 (11 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988

¶10

fSlnaJe Bench: Hon'bie Mr. N.K. AaanA/al. J.i

¶11

Present : Shri Vijay K. Deshmukh, counsel for the appellants. Ms. Annu Glri; counsei for the respondent.

¶12

ORAL ORDER

¶13

(Passed on 02nd day of February, 2010)

¶14

This is owner's appeal against the award dated 20-03-2W7 passed by Sixth Additiona! Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Clatm Case No. 12/2006 whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- has been awarded in favour of the respondent for the death of .Jjtendra^{Yadavl.e.sonofthe} respondent in the motor accident.

¶15

The facts briefiy stated are as under:

¶16

On 15-03-2006, deceased Jltendra Yadav whlle sittlng as piljion rider with Ravl Kumar @ Raja on motorcycle bearing reglstration No. CG 10 B.A./2082 and was coming from Chantjdih Sabji Mandl, the said motorcycle met with an accident and died on account of the injuries sustained by hlnrs Jn the said accldent-

¶17

The respondent mother and of the deceased has preferreol claim petitlon under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'She Act") claiming Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased agalnst the app^Ilants,

¶18

Learned TribunaJ on cSose scrutiny of the evidence ied, 'materiai piaced^{andsubmlssionsmadebythe} parties,^{awardedaiumpsumof} Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation aiong with Interest @ 12% per annum from the date of applicatjon tilJ the date of actual payment.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appeiiant would submit that the amount awarded by the iearned Tribunai is shockingly on hlgher side and deserves to be reduced.

¶20

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the compensatjon awarded is just and proper and deserves to be upheld.

¶21

I have heard iearned counsel for the parties and 'perused the award impugned.

¶22

3t is true that the iearned Tribunai has awarded a lump sum of Rs.2,00,000/towards compensation but even if the same is recomputed by taking jnto consideration the amount of Rs.36,000/- per annum, as yearly notlonai income ofthe deceased, in vlew ofjudgment of the Divjsion Bench of thls Court in case of Dusjan & Others vs. Ashoh Kumsr & Offiei^, reported in 2009 (3) C.G.LJ. 181, as accident took place jn the year 2006 in the instant case; and if we deduct 50% of it towards personai expenses of the deceased, then the !oss of dependency wouid be Rs.18,CX30/- per annum. Since the ciaimant Js mother, therefore, if we appEy the multipjier of 10 jn view of the judgment of the Apex Court jn the case of Munidpal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs Laxman fyer ancf another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 731, then the compensation on account of loss of dependency would be Rs.1,80,000/- and by adding further amount of Rs.20,000/- on other heads, the compensation would be Rs.2,00,(X)0/- i.e. not less than the amount awarded by the Tribunal.

¶23

In view of the above, since the amount awarded by the Tribunal Is just and proper, J do not fjnd any ijiegallty/jnfirmity In the award impugned passed by the iearned Tribunal, the appeat filed by the appellants being devoid of merits, is iiable to be and is hereby djsmissed, No order asto costs.

¶24

Kvr

¶25

Sd/N.K. Agarwai Judge

Ravi Kumr Vaishnav and Anr. v. Sushilabai Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Ravi Kumr Vaishnav and Anr. v. Sushilabai Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhawani Nirmalkar and Others Vs Hemraj and Others

Gati Ltd. and Others Vs Smt Naveena Jha

Durga Prasad Vs Asharam and Ors.

Bisauha and Another Vs Gyan Chand and Others

Surendra Kumar Sahu Vs Milibai and Others

Smt.Kanti Bai and Others Vs Ramkumar and Others