Partly allowed

Sham Nath Baghel and Others v. Harish Kumar Yadav and Others

Chhattisgarh HC7 Apr 2011MA/643/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Misc. appeal against an award in a motor accident claim case. The High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of the deceased, adjusting the multiplier and personal expenses deduction, and directed the insurance company to deposit the enhanced amount.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,99,200/- including interest; Insurance Company granted three months to deposit enhanced amount before the Claims Tribunal.

Sham Nath Baghel and Others Vs Harish Kumar Yadav… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

DLVISIONBENCH

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J.

¶5

Misc. Appeal No. 643 of 2006

¶6

Appellants 1. Shamnath Baghel, S/o Late Kodiya Claimants Ram, 50 years

¶7

Lakhmi Bai, W/o Shamnath Baghel, 45 years

¶8

Ku Jhuri, D/o Shamnath Baghel, 19 years All R/o Village - Sonarpal, Dist Bastar (CG)

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

Respondents 1. Harish Kumar Yadav, S/o Gendulal Non-applicants Yadav, 32 years, R/o Tikrapara, Raipur (CG)

¶11

Satvant Singh Gill, S/o Surjeet Singh, R/o Ravi Nagar, Shukla Colony, Raipur (CG)

¶12

The Oriental Insurance Company, Through^- Branch Manager, Main Road, Jagdalpur (CG)

¶13

MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT.1988.

¶14

Present: Shri Prafull Bharat and Shri Santosh Bharat, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, counsel for respondent No.3.

ORDER

rth (07tnApril,2011)

The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.

¶19

This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 20.10.2005, passed in Claim Case No.83/2004.

¶20

As against the compensation of Rs.17,96,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents and younger sister of deceased Durjo @ Devashish Baghel by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 26.01.2004, the Tribunat awarded a total sum of Rs.2,88,6287- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum in the event of insurer's failure to deposit the amount of compensation within two months of the passing ofthe award.

¶21

The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Durjo @ Devashish Baghel died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 26.01.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No.C.G.04/ZA-0241; as the above offending vehicle Bus on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental 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 claimants.

¶22

^K^^" "^. ^ ^^•^.:g ;, ^^

¶23

¶24

As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality.

¶25

The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,817/- per month. By deducting Rs.1,500/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.3,317/- per month and Rs.39,804/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.39,804/with the multiplier of 7, the compensation was worked out to Rs.2,78,628/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.10,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,88,628/as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Durjo @ Devashish Baghel in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,88,628/- @ 6% per annum in the event of insurer's failure to deposit the amount of compensation within two months ofthe passing ofthe award.

¶26

Shri Prafull Bharat and Shri Santosh Bharat, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in selecting the lower multiplier of 7 and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,88,628/- only. 7) Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, submitted that the Tribunal has erred in deducting only 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal

¶27

^ys ^ "^^/"^ ^s ^... .^1""^';

¶28

¶29

expenses though the deduction in that behalf ought to have been 50% of the income of the deceased.

¶30

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

¶31

Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,88,628/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) The Tribunal, in our opinion, has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,817/- per month as the evidence led by the claimants established the income of the deceased at Rs.4,817/- per month as has been shown in his salary certificate Ex.P/1.

¶32

As deceased Durjo @ Devashish Baghel was unmarried on the date of the accident 50% of the income of the deceased is required to be deducted towards his personal expenses in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225.

¶33

By deducting Rs.2,407/per month (about 50% of Rs.4,817/-) towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.2,410/- per month and Rs.28,920/- per annum.

¶34

^^ ^'—/ • /f ^.^'^

¶35

¶36

The multiplier of i selected by the Tribunal is certainly on the lower side. As the claimants are parents of the deceased multiplier of 10, in our opinion, would be appropriate in the present^{caseinviewof thedictumof theApexCourtinthecase} of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman lyer and another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, wherein it was held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should neverexceed 10.

¶37

By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.28,920/- with the multiplier of 10 the compensation worksout to Rs.2,89,200/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/for loss of estate. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,99,200/- as compensation for the death of deceased Durjo @^{DevashishBaghelinthemotor accident.} 15) The claimants are further awarded a sum of Rs.1,428/- as quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of Rs.10,572/-.

¶38

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.2,88,628/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,99,200/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.1,428/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.10,572/-.

¶39

¶40

T^ ./••r^;"-~:. lv^{:.;.".^..} t<sup>^^•'^ ,J ^^{"^y} '•^^<-''

¶41

¶42

¶43

Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs. 12,0007(Rs.10,572/towards enhanced amount of compensation⁺ Rs.1,428/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.10,572/-) before

¶44

the concerning Claims Tribunal.

¶45

No order as to costs.

¶46

Sd/ChiefJustice

¶47

Sd/R.N. Chandrakar Judge

¶48

nimml

Sham Nath Baghel and Others v. Harish Kumar Yadav and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sham Nath Baghel and Others v. Harish Kumar Yadav 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

Ama Haldar @ Amar Samdar and Anr. Vs Parimal Ojha and Others

Beniram Nishad and Another Vs Ahmed Khan and Others

Dil Bai and Others Vs Smt. Indira Singh and Others

Dharmendra Kumar Banchor Vs Lalchand Chandel and Others

Smt.Sushma Yadav and Others Vs Naresh Kumar Kanyuriya and Others

Smt.Kachara Bai Vs Kalipad Burman and Others