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

Chhattisgarh HC7 Apr 2011MA/675/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellants' appeal for enhancement of compensation in a motor accident case. Reconsidering the deceased's income and age, the Court enhanced the award to Rs. 2,89,000 including funeral and dependency losses, plus quantified interest of Rs. 11,000.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,89,000; interest of Rs. 11,000 quantified; insurer granted three months to deposit the enhanced amount.

Smt.Sushma Yadav and Others Vs Naresh Kumar Kanyuriya and… — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

-T^.F.^

¶2

HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTBGARH AT BILA8PUR

¶3

DIVISION BENCH

¶4

CORAM: HO HO	N'BLES N'BLESH Misc.AD	HRIRAJEB/GUPTA.CJ. RIRANGNATHCHANDRAKAR,J peal No.676 of 2006
ADpellants Claimants	1	Smt Sushma Yacfav, Wifo Late Dharmsingh @ Baccha Yadav, age 33 years
	2	Ku Pooja Yadav, d/o Late Dharm Singh.agelSyears
	3	Ku Priyanka Yadav, d/o late Dharm Singh,age12years
	4	Ku Riya Yadav, d/o late Dharm Singh, age7years
	5	Shivang Yadav, s/o late Dharm Singh, age1 yr5months
		Appeltant No.2 to 5 minor, through natural guardian and mother appetlant No.1.
		All r/o Koria Colliery, PS CNrmiri, District Koria. CG
		VERSUS
Respondents Non-applicants		Naresh Kumar Khanyuri^i, Latehandra Khanyuriya, Sindhi/age 26 years, r/o Ojaswi Marbal Factory, Slimnabad. Distt Katni, MP
		Amit Tripathi, s/o AN Tripathi, r/o Housing Board, PS Madhavnagar, Katni, Distt Katni MP
		National Insurance Compsmy Ltd., Gajanand TalWes, Malviyaganj, Katni. Dlstt Katni. MP.

¶5

:-^<br>

¶6

4 Smt Archana Dubey w/o. late Ashish Dubey, age 28 years, r/o. Koria Colliery, P.S. Chjrmiri, Dist. Koria. C.©.

¶7

¶8

Afroz Khan s/o. Shri Abdul SaKm, age 30 yeare, r/o. Cinema Hall Dafai, Korla Colliery, P.S. Chirmiri, Dist. Koria, C.G.

¶9

National Insurance Company Umited, in front of Laxmi Talkies, Jabalpur, Dist. Jabalpur, Head office - National Insurance Company Ltd.. Division No.10, Flat No.101-106 N-1, BHC house, Cannaught Place, New Delhi 110001.

¶10

Miscellaneous Appeal under Seckfon 173 ot MotorVehiclesAct

¶11

Present : Shri A.K. Prasad, counsel for the appeWants. None for respondents No.1,2,4 and 5. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondents No.3 and 6.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

(07th Aprtl, 2011)

¶14

The following order of the Court was passed by

¶15

Rajeev Gupta, CJ.

¶16

j—Tr

¶17

This js claimants' appeal for enharoGement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, District Koriya (for shortthe Trtounal') vide award dated 16.03.2006, passed in Claim Case No.02/2004.

¶18

As against the compensation of Rs.20,04,6S1/-, elaimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and nritnor childr®fi of deceased Dharmstngh @ Baccha Yadav, byfUing a claim p8litt©n uncler Sectton 166 of the Motor Vehictes Act, for his ^eaAh on 07.09.2003 on account of the injuries sustained by hhn in the motor

,,<^- ..-"^

acddent on 01.09.2003, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.1,95,000/- as compensation to the clajmants atong with intere^ @ 9% per annum from the date (rf flling of theclaim petttlon till the date of actual payment.

¶23

The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the wtire e^denee led before ft held that deceased Dharmsingh @ Baccha Yadav ctied on 07.09.2003 on account of the injuries sustained by hlm in the motor accjdent on 01.09.2003; the acoident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehtete Maruti Car bearing reglstration No.KA-04-N/'®17;as the abov® offending vehtete Maruti Car on the date of the accldent was insured w'rth the National tnsurance Company Limjted, and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the pottey conditions, the Insurance Company was Uabte to pay the compensation to the claimants.

¶24

As the respondents have not ffled any appeal agaunst the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribynal have now attained flnality.

¶25

The Tribunat assessed the income @f the deeeased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the on the basis of the noti@nal inoome prescrlbed^{intheSecondScheduleunderSectlon163-AofVhe} Motor Vehtele Act. By deducttng 1/3rd of Rs.15.000/- towarxte the personal^{expensesofthedeceased,theclaimants'dependency} was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By muttiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/with the multtptier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,70.000/". By awarding

¶26

.;'::J:^ .;/ .^ ^ '^-.I y ^!"~-.£^'ts\ y ':'^ •l^tmj '% ^ &'"'-^r

¶27

¶28

further sum of Rs.9,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.9,000/- for transportation of the body; Rs.5,0€X)/-for loss of consortlum to ttie widow; and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,95,000/as compensation to the claimants for the death ofdeceased Baceha Yadav in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed pa^ient of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,95,000/9% per annum from the date offiling ofthe clalm petitton till the date of actual payment.

¶29

Shri A.K. Prasad. leamed counset fsr (e appeUante submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not aecepttng the claimants' evidence about the income of the deTOg®ed and in assessing his income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,95,000/- only.

¶30

Shrt Raj Awasthi, teamed counsel for responetent N©.3,ttie Natjonal Insurance Company Limited, insurer of the offlending vehicte Maruti Car, on the other hand supported the awani and contended that as the claimants could not estaMish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them, the compensation of Rs.1,95,000/awarded by the Tribunal is just and prop®compensation in thefacts and circumstances offie present ease. 8) In a motor accident claim case what is important i8 ttiat the compensation to be awarcted by the Courts / Tribunate should b@ just and proper compensatlon in the facts and GlrcumstanGes of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of Gompensatlon, n@r

¶31

a bonanza.

¶32

¶33

;.,':^ 1 ^•^ I ^^y^.•^^

¶34

Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,95,000/awarded by the Tribunal Is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶35

True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Dharmsingh @ Baccha Yadav used to eam Rs.5,000/- per month by selllng milk and from his pan-shop, no cogent and rellable evtdence was led before the Tribunal to establish the above occupatjons of the deceased and his income to the extentof Rs.5,000/" per montti. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in dlscarding the claimants' evktence about the income ofthedeceased.

¶36

Nevertheless, the income of the deceased ass^sed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2003 is ©ertainlyon the lower side and requires reconsiGteration.

¶37

Considering that deceased Dharmslngh @ Baccha Yadav on the date of the accictent was aged about 3§yeare, we are ©fttie opinion that he could have easily eamed Rs.70-75/- per day even by working as unskilled labour. We, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income ofthe^teceased sA Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum.

¶38

By deducting the usual 1/3"* of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the clalmants' dependency is assessed at Rs. 16.000/- per annum.

¶39

Consldering that deceased Dharrrislngh @ Baocha Yadav was 35 years of age on the date of the accident and his widoiw claimant Smt. Sushma Yadav was shown to be ^ years in e

¶40

¶41

^^.^ -'^.

¶42

claim petition, we are of the opinlon that multipller of 16 woutd be appropriate in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Saria Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 wherein multipHer of 16 has been prescribed forthe age group between 31-35 years.

¶43

By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- wtth the multiplier of 16,the compensation works out to Rs.2,56,000/-. The ctaimants 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. By adding further sum of Rs. 18,0007awarded by the Tnbunal towards medteal expenses and transportation ofthe body, the claimants become entltl^i to receive a total sum of Rs.2,89,000/- as compensatlon for the death of deceased Dharmsingh @ Baccha Yadav in the motor accident.

¶44

Learned counsel for the parties submitted that wfth a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties before ttie Tribunal about the period for which the claimants are entitted to recei^ interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensatlon may be quantified in this appeal itself.

¶45

Considerir^ all the relevant aspects of the matter, including the delay in disposal of the claim petttion and the present appeal, and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entlre ctelay in the matter, we quantify the amoynt of Snterest

¶46

^2S-.^Sl2-.:^Y' • ^''':_^^--.^:^x^w^^^~:: ^.^^•^^^^^^^^ ^~s/ •^^.y

¶47

¶48

on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.94,000/- at Rs.11,000/-.

¶49

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fited by the appellants/ daimants for enhancement of the compensation te allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,95,fl0(y- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,89,000/- wtth further quantifled amount of interest of Rs.11,000/-on the enhanced anwunt o< compensation of Rs.94,000/-.

¶50

Respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Umited te granted^{threemonths'timefordepositingthetotalsumof} Rs.1,05,000/towarcts enhanced ainourrt of (Rs.94,000/compensation⁺ Rs.11,000/- towards quantifted amourt of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.94,000/-) before the conceming Claims Tribunal.

¶51

No order as to costs.

¶52

Sd/ChiefJustice

¶53

Sd/R.N. Chandrakar Judge

¶54

subbu

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Sushma Yadav and Others v. Naresh Kumar Kanyuriya 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

Sham Nath Baghel and Others Vs Harish Kumar Yadav and Others

Smt.Kachara Bai Vs Kalipad Burman and Others