Partly allowed

Smt. Indira Bai and Others v. Shravan Kumar and Others

Chhattisgarh HC7 Jan 2011MA/959/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced motor accident compensation from Rs.2,03,000/- to Rs.2,93,000/- by re-evaluating the deceased's income and multiplier, directing immediate deposit by the insurer.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.2,93,000/-; interest of Rs.10,000/- awarded; insurer granted three months' time for deposit.

Smt. Indira Bai and Others Vs Shravan Kumar and… — Company and Corporate | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH

¶2

CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMARSINHA, J.

¶3

Misc. Appeal No.959 of 2005

Appellants

Claimants

1 Smt Indira Bai, W/o Keshav Rajak agd about 34 years

¶8

2 Bhagwat aged about 15 years, S/o Late Keshav Rajak

¶9

3 Ku. Manju aged about 13 years D/o Late Keshav Rajak

¶10

¶11

4 Ku Rakhi aged about 11 years, D/o Late Keshav Rajak

¶12

5 Durgesh aged about 9 years, S/o Late Keshav Rajak

¶13

Appellant No.2 to 5 minor through their next friend mother Smt Indira Bai, Wd/o Late Keshav Rajak

¶14

All R/o Tikrapara Ward, The & Distt Dhamtari (CG)

¶15

Versus

¶16

Respondents Shravan Kumar, S/o Pawan Kumar Non-applicants Agrawal, aged about 30 years, R/o Gandhi Chowk Balaji Nagar Khursipar, Bhilai, Distt Durg (CG)

¶17

Bhupendra Singh Tanwar, S/o Suraj Singh, R/o L & T, TatSbandh, Raipur (CG)

¶18

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Near Aadarsh Bal, Mandir, Dhamtari (CG)

¶19

Misc. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehide Act

¶20

%. -:.. „ 1 l^''v ^.y

¶21

Present : Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶22

Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P Dutta, counset for respondent No.3.

¶23

ORDER (07th January, 2011)

¶24

~^-'

¶25

The following order of the Court was passed by

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.

This Ss olaimants' appeal for enhancement of ttie compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short 'the Tribunal') vide awa^d dated 30.03.2005, passed in Claim Case No.541/2004.

¶30

As against the compensation of Rs.19,20,000/-, claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate wtdow and minor children of deceased Keshav Rajak, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 12.06.2004 the Tribunalawarded a total sum of Rs.2,03,000/as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

¶31

The Tribunai on a close scrutiny of the entlre evidence led before it held that deceased Keshav Rajak died on account of the injuries sustained by hjm in the motor accident 12.06.2004; the accident occurreddue to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CG-04 ZC/7675; as the above offending vehtele Truckon the darte ofthe accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited

¶32

and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy^{conditions,theInsuranceCompanywasliableto} pay compensation to the claimants.

¶33

As the respondents have not fited any appeal against the award, the above findings recordeel by the Tribunal have now attalned finality.

¶34

¶35

^•'

¶36

The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the daimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,60,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/towards funeral expenses and Rs.38,000/towards medical expenses, pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,03,000/- as compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal further directed paymerrt of interesf on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,03,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

¶37

Shri Vimtesh Bajpai, leamed counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not aeoepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs. 15,0007- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,03,000/- only.

^ ^' "'-j £ '":::.y

V.;;

~-;

Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P Dutta, leamed counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that, as the claimants could not establish the income of the deceased as pleaded by them. the compensation of Rs.2,03,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case.

¶43

In a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunate shoutd be just and proper compensation in the facts and clrcumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, rror a bonanza.

¶44

Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,03,000/awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensatjon in tlte facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Keshav Rajak used to earn Rs.150/- per day as labour/coolie, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. We, therefore, do not flnd any fault in the approach of the Tribunat in discarding the datmants' evidence about the income of the deceased.

¶45

Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2004 is certainly on the lower side and requires re-consideration.

¶46

Considering that deceased Keshav Rajak was aged about 38 years, we are of the opinion that he could have easily earaed Rs.60-70/- per day even by working as anun-skilled labour. We,

¶47

^'.-sr

¶48

¶49

therefore, propose to re-oompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/per annum.

¶50

By deducting the usual 1/3rd of Rs.24,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the daimarrts' dependency is assessed at Rs.16,CX)0/- per annum.

¶51

¶52

Considering that deceased Keshav Rajak was aged about 38 years, we are of the opinion that multiplier of 15 would be appropriate in the present case in view of the dtetum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported In (20( ) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 wherein multiplier of 15 has been prescribed for the age group between 36-40 years.

¶53

By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16.000/- with ie multiplier of 15, the compensation works out to Rs.2,40,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.S.CXX)/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5.000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. By adding the further sum of Rs.38,000/awarded by the Tribunal towards medjcal expenses incurred on the treatment ofthe deeeased between the date ofthe accldent and his death in the hospital, the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,93,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Keshav Rajak Jn the motor accident.

¶54

Learned counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties about the period for whfoh the claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced

¶55

"'<

¶56

^^-'

¶57

amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeat itself.

¶58

'v-;

¶59

Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter including the delay in disposal of the claim petitlon and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to b@ blamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.90,000/- at Rs.10,000/-.

¶60

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.2.03,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,93,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.10,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of iAia.90,000/-.

¶61

Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Liraited ts granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1 .OO.OOO/(Rs.90,000/towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.10,000/- towards quantifled amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.90,000/-) before the concerning Glaims Tribunal.

¶62

No order as to costs.

¶63

Sd/Chief Justice

¶64

Sd/Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge

¶65

padma

Smt. Indira Bai and Others v. Shravan Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Indira Bai and Others v. Shravan 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

Ajit Singh Dhadiwal Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Murlidhar Santani Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt.Sumitra Markam and Another Vs Mukesh Kumar and Others

Raffail Vs the State of M.P.

Santosh Kumar Yadu Vs Regional Transport Authority, Raipur

Sm.T Kamaljeet Kaur Vs State Transport Authority and Anr.