Allowed

Smt.Sumitra Markam and Another v. Mukesh Kumar and Others

Chhattisgarh HC6 Jan 2011MA/734/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an appeal against the compensation awarded in a motor accident claim. The High Court examined the Tribunal's assessment of the deceased's income and dependency, finding the Tribunal erred in deducting an excessive amount for personal expenses. The Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.7,49,400/- based on a revised income figure of Rs.5,400/- per month and affirmed the use of the multiplier

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.7,14,000/- to Rs.7,49,400/- with quantified interest of Rs.3,600/- granted to appellants.

Smt.Sumitra Markam and Another Vs Mukesh Kumar… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

'^f^N.'^. ^K ^ :^.^'/ v '^ yA^ ^^^^ ^.•^^

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

DIVISION BENCH

¶4

^
'^..

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHR1 SUNSL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 734 of 2004

¶6

Appellants 1. Smt. Sumitra Markam, aged about Claimants 28 years, Wd/o late Surendra Singh Markam

¶7

1. Smt. Mahesiya Bai, Aged about 55 years, W/o. Patwari Ram Markam Both R/o Village Bhojpuri, P.0. Sargaon, P.S. Hirri, District Bilaspur

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Respondents 1. Mukesh Kumar Raikwar, aged about Driver 25 years, R/o Civil Ward No.3, in front of Jail, Damoh (M.P.)

¶10

Owner 2. Sandeep Singh, s/o Devi Singh Thakur R/o Shrinagar Khamtarai, P.S. Khamtarai, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

insurer 3. The National Insurance Company Ltd. divisional Manager, Branch Office, Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR

¶13

VEHICLES ACT. 1988

¶14

Present: Shri Rakesh Sahu, counsel for the appellants. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.3.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

(OSmJanuary,2011)

¶17

The following order of the Court was passed by

¶18

Rajeev Gupta, CJ.

¶19

&-^ ^'-

¶20

This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.04.2004, passed in Claim Case No. 15/2003.

¶21

'^--' 1

¶22

As against the compensation of Rs.27,50,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow and mother of deceased Surendra Singh Markam, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 04.02.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.7,14,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

¶23

The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Surendra Singh Markam died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 04.02.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negljgent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.C.G.04ZC/1590; as theabove offending vehide on the date of the accident was insured with the National 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.

¶24

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

"' \ ;-

f€^^SSI^ J ^-y

^,'

The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,152/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.5,152/-, towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessedat Rs.3,435/- month and Rs.41,220/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.41,220/with the multiplier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.7,01 ,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.13,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum ofRs.7,14,000/- as compensation to theclaimants for the death of deceased Surendra Singh Markam in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.7,14,000/@ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

¶29

Shri Rakesh Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.5,352/- per month and in assessing his income at a lower figure at Rs.5,152/per month only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs^7,14,000/- only.

¶30

Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Ljmited on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensationof Rs.7,14,000/awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

£%;':' 1,. ^,.. ..,.

-%.-

'^.

qft

The evidence of AW/2 Salisting Bada and the contents of the salary certificate of the deceased for the month of January 2003 establish the gross income of the deceased at Rs.5,352/- per month. Inspite of the above categoric evidence about the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has assessed hjs income at Rs.5,152/- per month which cannot be upheld. We, therefore, propose^{tore-computethecompensationtakingtheincomeofthe} deceased at Rs.5,352 per month which is rounded off to Rs.5,400/per month.

¶36

By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.5,400/- per month towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.3,600/- per month and Rs.43,200/- per annum. 10) Considering that deceased Surendra Singh Markam was aged about 30 years, the multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunal is perfectly justified in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121Wherein multiplier of 17 was prescribed for the age group between 26-30 years.

¶37

By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.43,200/- with the multiplier of 17 the compensation works out to Rs.7,34,400/-. 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 entitjed to receiye a total sum of Rs.7,49,400/- as compensation for

¶38

-"\

¶39

J X-": ^ 1 "::"-;: ^^^.^"

¶40

the death of deceased Surendra Singh Markam in the motor accident.

¶41

The claimants are further awarded a sum of Rs.3,600/- as quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.35,400/-.

¶42

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appeliants/ claimants for enhancement of thecompensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.7,14,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.7,49,400/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.3,600/on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.35,400/-.

¶43

Respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.39,000/towards enhanced amount of (Rs.35,400/compensation + Rs.3,600/- towards quantjfied amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.35,400/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal.

¶44

15)^ No order as to costs.

¶45

Sd/Chief Justice

¶46

:! Sd/Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge

¶47

padma

Smt.Sumitra Markam and Another v. Mukesh Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Sumitra Markam and Another v. Mukesh Kumar 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. Thagiya Bai and Ors. Vs Munna and Others

National Insurance Company Vs Smt.Tagiya Bai and Others

Lakhwant Singh Gill Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ajit Singh Dhadiwal Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Murlidhar Santani Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Radhyshyam Dhurve Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.