Partly allowed

Smt.Phoolwati v. Thangraj and Others

Chhattisgarh HC1 Sept 2011MA/29/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, holding the High Court erred in deducting two-thirds of the deceased's income. The court directed a recalculation based on 50% deduction, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 85,000 to Rs. 1,18,000 and granting interest on the enhanced amount.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 1,18,000 with interest of Rs. 3,000 on the enhanced amount; insurer granted three months to deposit the difference.

Smt.Phoolwati Vs Thangraj and Others — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

^•'.a rf '%.

,<-

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH

¶5

CORAIVI:

¶6

HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J.

¶7

IVIisc. Appeal No. 29 of 2006

¶8

Appellant

¶9

Claimant

¶10

Smt. Phoolwati, widow of Doramrao Meshram, eged about 70 years, resident of Bakhtawar Chal, Tulsipur and District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

Respondents 1. Non-applicants

¶13

Thangraj, son of Mufii Appan Tamil, aged 21 years, Resident of Kulam Patti, Post Kulam Patti, Police Station Tebur, Tahsil Sekeri (Sakagiri), District Sailam

¶14

(Tamilnadu)

¶15

K. Polinivel, son of Karupannaan, resident of S7'-A, New Pallipalayam Road.KomarriEiayam Chiruchaigaud, Namakkal-638183

¶16

3 Royal Sundarsm Alliance Insurance Company Limited, 46, White Road, Chennai-600014.

¶17

Appeal under Section 173 ofthe !l»aotorVehicles Act,

¶18

Present: Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sachin Singh Rajput snd Shri Goutam Bhaduri, Counsel for respondent No.3.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

(01st September,2011)

¶21

The following order of the Court was passed by

¶22

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.

¶23

tssaa?.^ A' ,li3:;i;;*> %^i^s'^,^ ,..-r-3^T'',-. i'3 Tij.gy% | ^ s '1:». "SS^"..'p .if-y

¶24

¶25

MA.No. 29 of 2006

¶26

Appellant/ claimant Smt. Phoolwati, unfortunate mother of deceased Ku. Sandhya Meshram is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 28.10.2005, passed^{inClaimCaseNo. 19/2004.}

¶27

As against the compensation of Rs.10,53,000/- claimed by the appellant/claimant, unfortunate mother of deceased Ku.Sandhya Meshram, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 22.06.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.85,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

¶28

The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that the claimant's daughter Ku. Sandhya Meshram died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 22.06.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.T.N.28 T/3370; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4)" As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality.

¶29

The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at

¶30

t«?.C •\

¶31

MA.No. 29 of 2006

¶32

Rs.3,000/- per month. By deducting 273rd of Rs.3,000/- towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased, the claimant's dependency was assessed at Rs.1,000/- per month and Rs.12,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multiplier of 6, the compensation was worked out to Rs.72,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.13,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.85,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the death of her daughter Ku. Sandhya Meshram in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.85,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

¶33

Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimant's evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing her income at Rs.3,000/- per month only; in deducting 2/3 of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses; in selecting the lower multiplier of 6; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.85,000/only.

¶34

1. Shri S.S. Rajput and Shri Goutam Bhaduri, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Cogipany Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.85,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper^{compensationinthefactsandcircumstancesofthe} present

¶35

case.

¶36

x "ll.

¶37

,r:^ ^ '^ , ^ /• '^ 'v-^!:' ''%zsSs:'s"

¶38

M.A. N0. 29 of 2008

¶39

(^7

¶40

True, the claimant pleaded that her daughter Ku. Sandhya Meshram used to earn Rs.300/- per day from STD PCO Booth, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing her income to the extent of Rs.300/- per day. In this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal on its own estimate at Rs.3,000/- per month.

¶41

Nevertheless, the Tribunal certainly has erred in deducting 2/3 of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses. In our opinion, the deduction in that behalfought to have been to the extent of 50% only in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases ofSyed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the claimant's annual dependency at Rs.18,000/- per annum.

¶42

By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplier of 6 selected by the Tribunal, the compensation works out to Rs.1,08,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funerai expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate, the claimant -becomes entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,18,000/as compensation for the death of her daughter Ku. Sandhya Meshram in the motor accident.

¶43

The claimant is awarded further synu3f-Ks-3-ootu

-^.

-•'•.,5^5^'''

"¥1 ••/ ^F

M.A.No. 29 of 2006

/'.:

quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.33.000/-.

¶52

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.85,000/awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,18,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.3,000/on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.33,000/-.

¶53

Respondent No.3 the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.36,000/- (Rs.33,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation⁺ Rs.3,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.33,000/-) before the

¶54

concerning Claims Tribunal.

¶55

No order as to costs.

¶56

Sd/Chief Jusdce

¶57

Sd/N.K. Agrawal Judge

¶58

subbu

Smt.Phoolwati v. Thangraj and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Phoolwati v. Thangraj and Others

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

Smt Krishna Bai and Others Vs Jeet Ram Yadav and Others

Mantu Vishwas Vs Sewaram Agrawal and Ors.

Pawan Kumar Sahu Vs Jairam Yadav and Others

Santram Vs Rajendra Singh and Ors.

Jai Kumar Borkar Vs Thangraj and Others

Uma Bai and Anr. Vs Ravi Kumar Aditya and Ors.