Partly allowed

Smt.Meena Bai and Others v. Sarju Ram and Others

Chhattisgarh HC8 Mar 2011MA/1193/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed appellants' claim for enhancement of compensation in a motor accident death case. Court reassessed deceased's income, adjusted multiplier, and awarded Rs.2,55,000/- plus Rs.8,000/- interest instead of the reduced Tribunal award.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.2,55,000/- including Rs.5,000/- each for funeral, loss of estate, and loss of consortium, with Rs.8,000/- interest.

Smt.Meena Bai and Others Vs Sarju Ram and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH

¶2

CORAM:	HON’B HON’B	LE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. LE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J.
	Misc. Ap	neal No.1 193 ^‘of2004
Appellants Claimant s	1.	Meena Bai, Wd/o Rikhi Ram, Ag about 32 years,
	2.	Prem Lal, S/o Rikhi Ram, aged about 14 years.
	3.	Shyama Bai, D/o Rikhi Ram, aged about 12 years.
		kh d Tukeshwar, S/o Rii Ram, age about 1O years.
	5.	Dam’eshwari, D/o Rikhi Ra’m, aged about 7 years.
		Appellant No.2 to 5 are Minor through natural guardian mothe Meena Bai, Wd/o Rikhi Ram Sahu, All are by caste Sahu, r/o Village Chandi, Tahsil Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS r
Respondent s Non-claimants	1.	Sarju Ram, S/o Jethu ishwakarma, V R/o Gokul Pur Ward, Dhamtari, Distt.Dhamtari (C.G.).
		Anil Kumar, S/o Chandu Lal Jain, r/o ' Shashtri Chowk, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.). ‘
		National insurance Company Ltd., Krishna Complex, G.E. Road, Raipur (CG).
		Gajanand /o Bhuwan Lal Sahu, r/o Kampa, Tahsil & Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.). S

¶3

¶4

Jagmohan, S/o Gahgu Ram Sahu, r/o Mohadi Hadaband, Tahsil & Distt.Mahasamund (C.G.).

¶5

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Kachahari Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.).

¶6

¶7

Misc. Appeal under Section^{173ofMotorVehiclesAct.}

¶8

Present : Shri Awadh Tripathi and'Shri^{VikasPradhan,counsel} l forthe appellants.

¶9

None for respondents No.1 ,2,4^and5. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel^{forrespondentNo.3.} Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri Varun Dubey, counsel for respondent No.6.

¶10

ORDER (oath^March,2011)

¶11

The following order of the Court was passed By Ra‘jeev Gupta,^C.J.

¶12

This is claimants’ appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident^Claims ‘the Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short Tribunal’) vide award dated 30.07.2004, passed^{inClaimCaseNo.94/2004.} 2) As against the compensation of Rs.22,00,000/—^claimedby the appellants/^{claimants,unfortunatewidowandminorchildrenof} deceased Rikhi^{Ram,byfilingaclaim} petition^{underSection166of} the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in th‘e motor accident on 21.04.2001, the^{TribunalawardedatotalsumofRs.1,72,000/—as} compensation along^withinterest @^6% perannum^{in‘theeventof} the insurer’s^{failuretodeposittheamountofcompensationwithin} one month of^the passing^oftheaward.

¶13

¶14

entire^evidenceled 3) The^{Tribunalonaclosescrutinyofthe} Rikhi^Ram died on account of the before it held that^deceased injuries^{sustainedbyhiminthemotoraccidenton21.04.2001;the} accident^{occurredduetorashandnegligentdrivingofthedriverof} the offending vehicle Metador bearing registration No.M.P.23— D/0540;^{astheaboveoffendingvehicleMetadoronthedateofthe} accident^{wasinsuredwiththeNationalinsuranceCompanyLimited} and^{theInsuranceCompanycouldnotestablishanybreachofthe} conditions, the insurance Company was liable to pay policy compensation^{totheclaimants.} 4) As the respondents^have not filed any appeal against^the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now ‘ attained^finality. 5)r The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at annum on the basis of the notional income Rs.15,000/— per of the in the Second Schedule under Section-163A prescribed By deducting^{1/3“ofRs.15,000/—towardsthe} Motor^VehiclesAct. expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency personal By multiplying^theannual. was^{assessedatRs.10,000/—perannum.} with the multiplier of 17, the of. Rs.10,000/— dependency By awarding was worked out to Rs.J,70,000/;_. compensation the^Tribunal further^sum of Rs.2,000/-^{towardsfuneralexpenses,} as compensation to‘the awarded a total sum of Rs.1,72,000/claimants for the death of deceased Rikhi Ram in the motor ‘ r7 accident. The^{Tribunalfurtherdirectedpaymentofinterestonthe} _

¶15

“.39.:-

¶16

above amount of compensation of Rs.1,72,000/— @ 6% per annum in the event of the insurer’s failure to pay the amount 9f compensation within one month of the, passing of the award. 6) Shri Awadh Tripathi and Shri Vikas Pradhan, learned counsei for the appeiiants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/— per annum only; in not awarding any sum towards loss of estate and loss of consortium to the widow; in awarding low amount of Rs.2,000/— s towards funeral expenses; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,72,000/— only.

¶17

Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the' National^”Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Metador, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them, the compensation of Rs.1,72,000/awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri Varun Dubey, learned counsel . for respondent No.6, the Oriental insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the other vehicle Stationary Truck, also supported the awa rd .

¶18

in a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper^compensation in the facts and circumstances of the

¶19

¶20

case. lt should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 4.

¶21

Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,72,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) True, the claimants pieaded that deceased Rikhi Ram used to earn Rs.4,500/— per month as Contractor, no cogent and reiiabie evidence was ied before the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.4,500/— per month. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased.

¶22

Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per‘annum in the year 2001 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration.

¶23

Considering that deceased Rikhi Ram, on the date of the accident, was aged about 35 years, we are of the opinion that he could have easily earned Rs.70-75/- per day in the year 2001 even by working as an unskilled labour. We, therefore, propose^to re—co‘mpute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/— per^{monthandRs.24,000/—} per^annum. 14) By deducting the usual 1/3rd of R's‘.24,000/-^‘towards the personal^{expensesofthedeceased,theclaimants’dependencyis} assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum.

¶24

r :“W^VJ

¶25

Considering the age of the deceased, his widow and their children, we are of the opinion that multipiier of 15 would be appropriate in the present case. 16) By muitiplying the annuai dependency of Rs.16,000/-‘ with ¢ the muitipiier of 15 the compensation works out to Rs.2,40,000/—. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/— for loss of estate; and Rs.5,000/— for loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,55,000/- as compensation^for the death of deceased Rikhi Ramⁱⁿ the motor^accident. l 17) Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties before the^Tribunal - about the period for which the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation,^theamountof interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified^{inthisappealitself.} 18) Considering all the relevant aspects of the^matter, including the delay in disposal of the claim petition,^andthe present^appeal and the fact that the insurance Company alone^{isnottobeblamed} for the entire delay in the matter,^we quantify^{theamountofinterest} on the enhanced amount of compensaflon of Rs.83,000/— at Rs.8,000l-. 19) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal^filedby the^appellants/ claimants for enhancement^{ofthecompensation} is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,72,000/awarded by the Tribunal is o

¶26

¶27

enhanced^{toRs.2,55,000/—withfurtherquantifiedamountofinteres} t of Rs.8,000/on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.83,000/-. 20) Respondent^{No.3theNationalInsuranceCompanyLimited} i s three months‘ time for depositing the total sum of granted towards enhanced amount of Rs.91 ,000/(Rs.83,000/, compensation⁺ Rst8,000/-^towards quantified^{amountofinterest} of Rs.83,000/—)^befor e amount^{ofcompensation} on the^enhanced the concerning^{ClaimsTribunai.}

¶28

No order as to costs.
\i-,
\Q:Q<br>Sd/-
t ELChierf Justice i

Smt.Meena Bai and Others v. Sarju Ram and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Meena Bai and Others v. Sarju Ram 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

Khorbehra and Ors. Vs State

Smt.Leelawati Gupta and Others Vs Chief Municipality Office Muni.Corp.

Saki Sudha Mahil Sw. Saha. Samuha Vs State of C.G. and Ors.

Lalan Prasad Vs State of C.G.

Kunwarsai Manjhwar Vs Hon'Ble Tribunal and Ors.

Deepak Kumar Gupat Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.