Partly allowed

Neetlal and Another v. Sanjeet Kumar Bhaskar and Others

Chhattisgarh HC5 Mar 2011MAC/1146/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the High Court enhanced station compensation by recomputing it. The court held the Tribunal erred in deducting two-thirds for personal expenses instead of fifty percent, ordering an enhancement to Rs. 1,92,500/-.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; compensation enhanced to Rs. 1,92,500/-; respondents directed to deposit additional amount of Rs. 60,000/- within two months.

Neetlal and Another Vs Sanjeet Kumar Bhaskar and… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

(v..^s'z

¶3

IN THE^{HON'BLEHIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHAT} BILASPUR (C.6.) M. A. (C) No. llM^ of 2010 5ingl» B©ncB

¶4

ABPELLANTS 1. Neetlal, S/o Hetram Chandra, aged ^ / about 38 years, ...^. ^y-^ 2. Duleshwan', W/o Neetlai Chandra, aged about 32 years, ^^.^y'

¶5

^""

¶6

Both R/o Village-Chhapora, Police Station-Malkharoda, bistrict-JanjgirChampa (C.G.)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

RESPONDENTS/ ^ ^ Sanjeet Kumar Bhaskar, S/o Sant Kumar Bhaskar, R/o Khadpadipara, Driver Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.&.) Qwner Dinesh Kumar Rathore, S/o Narayan ^> Prasad Rathore, R/o New Chandaniyapara, Janjgir, DistrictJanjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶9

Insurer 3.

¶10

Ifko Tokyo ^eneral Insurance Company Limited, through the Branch Manager, Third Floor, Shop No.-345-347, Lal Ganga Shoping Mall, 6.E. Road, Raipur (c.e.)

¶11

MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 FOR ENHANCEMENT

¶12

---tea_.

¶13

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. fQNo.l 146 of2010

¶14

APPELLANTS Neetlal & another

¶15

VERSUS

¶16

RESPONDENTS : Sanjeet Kumar Bhaskar & others

¶17

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT

¶18

SB: Hon»bleShri Justice N. K. Agarwal

¶19

¶20

Present : Shri HS Patel, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Vivek Shrivastava, Advocate for respondentNo.l&2. Shri Y8 Thakur with Shri KN Mukhaqeet, Advocates for respondentNo. 3.

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

(Passedon 05.03.2011)

¶23

¶24

With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard jfinally.

¶25

This is claimants appeal seeking enhaneement of compensation in the award dated 13.09.2010, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, Dist. Janjgir Champa (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 08/10.

¶26

Brief facts of the case according to the appellants are that, on 31.01.2010, Leeladhar Chandm (since deceased) while sitting in the cycle, was dashed by the driver of Bolero bearing registration No. CG-ll-BA-4655, as a result of which he succumbed to the injuries susteined in the said accident.

¶27

As against Rs. 44,77,000/- claimed by the parents of the deceased, the Tribunal, awarded total sum of Rs. 1,32,500/- as compensation in favour ofthe claimants along with interest @ 7 percent per annum from the date ofapplication till its payment.

¶28

.•^^-;,.,, ' vvh: .^"'^•' , 1 t<^iS^.-S| | 1 ~:^xy

Shri HS Patel, leamed counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that in such cases the Tribunal has erred in deductmg 2/3rd towards personal expenses ofthe deceased and thus has awarded low compensation to the appellants which deserves to be suitably enhanced.

¶35

On the other hand, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 supported the award and would submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly passed the award which deserves to be upheld.

¶36

I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned.

¶37

The Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence led, material placed and submissions made, assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 3000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum; deducted 2/3 ofit (i.e. Rs. 24,000/-) towards personal expenses ofthe deceased; applied multiplier of 10, assessed the amount of compensation towards yearly loss of dependency at Rs. 1,20,000/- (12,000/- X 10 = 1,20,000/-) and further awanled Rs. 12,500/- on other heads, and thus awarded total sum of Rs. 1,32,500/-(1,20,000/-+12,500/-) in favour ofthe claimants.

¶38

In case ofparents, normally standard deduction towards personal as expenses of the deceased would be 50 percent and not 2/3 4educted by the Tribunal without assigning any reasons which on the face is not proper. Therefore, I propose to re-compute the amount ofcompensation.

^-^

t!^€/ 1

After deducting 50 percent towards persona! expenses of the deceased, the yearly loss ofdependency would be Rs. 18,000/per annum; by applying multiplier of 10 as applied by the Tribunal, the amount of compensation towards loss of dependency would be Rs. 1,80,000/-. By adding farther amount of Rs. 12,500/- on other heads (Rs. 5000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 5000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs. 2500/- for loss of estate) as awarded by the Tribunal, total amoyat of compensation would be Rs. 1,92,500/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled for Rs. 1,92,500/- as compensation in place of Rs. 1,32,500/- as awarded by the Tribunal.

¶43

In view of above, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellants are entitled for a forther amount ofRs. 60,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7 percent per annum from the date of application till payment is made as awarded by the Tribunal.

¶44

The respondent No. 3/insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period oftwo months from today. No order asto costs.

¶45

Sd/N.K. Agrawal Judge

¶46

Sahu

Neetlal and Another v. Sanjeet Kumar Bhaskar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neetlal and Another v. Sanjeet Kumar Bhaskar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gandeshwar Pradhan Vs Ps.Netam and Ors.

Baldev Verma Vs State of Chhattisghar and Ors.

Bhula Vs Manharan Singh Thakur and Ors.

Tejram Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Prateek Khare Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Ram Bai Tiwari and Ors, Vs Smt. Sudha Tiwari