Dismissed

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

Chhattisgarh HC6 Apr 2011MA/814/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This miscellaneous appeal challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award dismissing the claimants petition seeking enhancement of compensation for their son death. The High Court upheld the tribunal award noting the driver lacked a valid licence at the accident time discharging insurers liability.

What did the court decide?

The appeal for enhancement of compensation was dismissed and the Tribunal award was upheld.

Ama Haldar @ Amar Samdar and Anr. Vs Parimal Ojha… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH

¶2

CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA C J & ‘ HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR J

¶3

Misc. Appeal No. 814 of 2006

¶4

Appellants Claimants

¶5

Amal Haldar @ Amal Samaddar s/o Banmah Haldar 45 years

¶6

Sumitra Haldar @ Sumlksh Samaddar, w/o Amal Haldar @ Amal Samadar, 42 years. Both R/o Jamroda, Post Heerapur, v P,S. Umarkote, Dist. Navrangpur (Orissa)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Respondents Non-appiicants

¶9

Parimal Ojha sfo Manmath Ojha, 22 years. 2. Pavitro Gjha, s/o Manmath Ojha, 28 years, Respondent No. 1 and 2 are rlor Orna Camp Aadawal, PostrJagdaIpur, Dist. Bastar C.G. 3. The United India Insurance Company through Branéh Manager, United india insurance Company, Anoopma Chowk, Jagdaipur, dist, Bastar C.G.

¶10

MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1938.

¶11

Present: Shn Santosh Bharat and Shn Keshav Dewangan counsei for the appellants Shn Dashrath Gupta counsel for respondent No.3.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

(os'h^April,2011)

¶14

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

¶15

‘ ,

¶16

The unfortunate parents of deceased Ashok Haldar @ Ashok Samaddar are the appellants before us in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor 'the Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastard at Jagdalpur, (for short Tribunai’) vide award dated 24.01.2006, passed in Claim Case No.37/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.10,40,000/— claimed by the appellants! claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Ashok Haldar @ Ashok Samaddar, by tiling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 28.08.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,52,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

¶17

The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that the claimants’ son Ashok Haldar @ Ashok Samaddar died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 28.08.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent drivingk of the motorcyclist of Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.17/J-3020; though the above motorcycle on the dateof the accident was insured with . the United India insurance Company Limited, as the motorcyclist

¶18

/"\ it

¶19

was not holding a vaHd and effective driving iicense and the risk of the pinion—rider was not covered under the insurance Poiicy, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants and the liability in that behalf was that of the owner of the motorcycle.

¶20

The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/— per month and Rs.36,0DO/- per annum. By deducting 2/3“ of Rs.36,000/— towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.12,000/— per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/with the multiplierof 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1v,80;GOO/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.40,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.32,000/under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,52,000/— as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Ashok Haldar @ Ashok Samaddar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,52,000/— @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The Tribunal further directed that in the event of insurer’s failure to recover the amount of Rs.50,000/deposited by them under^‘no fault liability’ from the owner of the motorcycle, the Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover t the same from the claimants.

¶21

Shri Santosh Bharat and Shri Keshav Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal \

¶22

has erred in exonerating^{theinsurerofthemotorcyclefrom} its liability^to pay^{compensationtotheclaimants;} in assessing^the income of^{thedeceasedatRs.3,000/-permonthandRs.36,000l-} per^{annumonly;indeducting2/3”oftheincomeofthedeceased} towards his personal expenses; and in awarding low I compensation^{ofRs.2,52,000l—only.}

¶23

¶24

Shri Dashrath^{Gupta,learnedcounselforrespondentNo.3} —- The United lndia insurance^Company Limited, on the other hand^{supportedtheawardandcontended} that as respondent No.1 Parimal^{Ojha,whowasdrivingthemotorcycleatthetimeof} the accident was not holding any valid and effective driving license, the Tribunal^has rightly^{exoneratedthe} insurer of the motorcycle.

¶25

So far^{asthefindingrecordedbytheTribunalleadingto} exoneration^{oftheinsurerofthemotorcyclefromitsliabilitytopay} compensation^{totheclaimantsisconcerned,wegatherfromthe} learning^{licenseofNAW2ParimalOjha(Ex.D/2)thathislearning} license was valid from 23.01.2004 to 22.07.2004. The unfortunate^{accidentwhereintheclaimants’sonAshokHaldar@} Ashok^Samaddar lost his life took place^on 28.08.2004. We further gather^{fromtheevidenceofNAW2ParimalOjhathathe} obtained another learning license which was valid from 20.09.2004 to 12.03.2005. Thus, it is apparent that from 22.07.2004,‘the^{dateonwhichhisfirstlearninglicenseexpiredtill} 20.09.2004, the date on which he obtained another learning

¶26

¶27

license, he was not holding any driving license at all. As such, the breach of the policy conditions is apparent. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding that NAW2 Parimal Ojha who was driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident was not holding a valid and effective driving license and as such the insurer of the mOtorcycle was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

¶28

So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000[— per annum. Even if 50% of Rs.36,000/— is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammad Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225, and the claimants’ dependency is assessed at Rs.18,000l-; the appropriate multiplier in the case would not be more than 10 in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman (yer 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 never exceed 10; by multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/— with the multiplier of 10, the compensation works out to Rs.1,80,000/—; by adding further sum^'of Rs.72,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses and other heads, the claimants become entitled to

¶29

‘Tribunalreceive a total sum of Rs.2,52,000/-, the same amount which the has awarded to the cleimants under the impugned award. \‘For 9) the foregoing reasons, we do not Find any scope for 'by enhancement of the compensation awarded the Tribunal.

% ’

subbu

The appeal flied by the. appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be V dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

¶34

No order as to costs.

¶35

order as to costs. K
pl
j Sd/-
" I
Sd/- i‘ Rangnath Chandrakar
i
Chief Justice Judge
i ifi’ i W i
ii

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ama Haldar @ Amar Samdar and Anr. v. Parimal Ojha 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

Beniram Nishad and Another Vs Ahmed Khan and Others

Dil Bai and Others Vs Smt. Indira Singh and Others

Johan Lal Verma Vs Sanjay Yadav and Others

Dharmendra Kumar Banchor Vs Lalchand Chandel and Others

Sham Nath Baghel and Others Vs Harish Kumar Yadav and Others

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