Partly allowed

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Niranjan Viswas and Others

Chhattisgarh HC10 Jan 2011MAC/1154/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award was dismissed in part. Court revised the compensation quantum from Rs.3,59,000 to Rs.2,69,000 by correcting income deductions and multiplier based on claimants' age.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award dated 26.03.2009 modified; compensation reduced from Rs.3,59,000 to Rs.2,69,000; rest of award conditions remained in tact.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Niranjan Viswas and… — Banking and Recovery | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

.^^

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH^ILASPJJR

¶3

DB: HON'BLB LM. QUDDUSI& HON'BLE PRASHANT Kr. MI8HRA, JJ

¶4

M. A. (0. No. 1154 OP 2009

¶5

APPELLANT		National Insuran.ee Coinpany Ltd., Jagdalpur (C,G),, through Divisional Manager, Bilaspiir (C.G).
		Vs.
RBSPPNDENTS	1	Niraajan Viswas, s/o Ram Charan, aged about48 years, Fattierof deceased
	2	KajalViswas, w/o Niranjaa Viswas, aged 47 years, Mofherofdeceasecl, Respondents 1 & 2 are residents of Baregaon, Distt.Bastar (C.G).
	3.	Vijay Kumar Nag, son ofR,P. Nag, r/o Forest Depot, Keshkal, Jagdalpur(C.G)
	4.	R. P. Nag, sonofJohaa Nag, Deputy Raager, R/o Forest Depot Keshkal, Jagdalpur(C.G).
	5.	Amit Deonath, sonofAkul Deonath, r/o Maia Road,Keshkal, Jagdalpm'

¶6

^yPPBAL UNDER SBm'ION 173 OP THE MOTOR VEHICLBS ACT^ 1988

¶7

APPBARANCB:

¶8

Mr. Shrikuniar Agrawal, Sr. AdvcK^ate wifh Mr. Anaad Gupta, counsel for fhe appeUant.

¶9

None for the respondents,

ORDBR (ORALJ

(10.01.2011)

Per I.M. OUDDUSI. J

I- List is beiag revised. Case is agaia caUed out. When tlie raatter is taken up even ia second round, counsel for the

¶14

appeUaat is present, but no one appears for fhe respondents,

¶15

:-£«>*s'as-utf;L,^..'!vl..:^

¶16

/ ^r^
^^. 1

¶17

despite service ofnotice upon fhera. Therefore, we have no other option except to proceed for final heariag ex-parte.

This appeal has been filed by fhe lusuraace Compaay agaiast impugned award dated 26.03.2009 passed by fhe First Additional Motor Accident Clainis Tribunal; Jagdalpur (Bastar) (C.G) in Claun Case No.05/2008.

¶22

Brief facts of fhe case as per flie version of th.e claiiaaats are fhat on 30,11,2007 deceased Gautain Viswas was driviag the inotorcycle bearing Regn.No.C.G.04-A/4510 slowly aad steadUy on fhe left side of fhe road. He was goiag to BatraM. On the way, near a culvert, one m.otorcycle bearmg Regu,No.l9-B/0669 which was beiag driven by respondent ao.3 m a rash and negUgent manner dashed the motor cycle of the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased succuiabed to fhe mjuries durmg fhe course of treatoaient ia hospital. The deceased was aged about 19 years aad was deaLuig in hotel busuiess earatag Rs.300/- per day. The parents beiag legal representatives of fhe deceased have niade a clami to fhe tune of Rs.59,50,000/- on various heads.

¶23

The Claims Tribunal held that on 30.11.2007, respondent no.3 who was driving fhe offendiag niotorcycle ia rash aad negUgent raaaner dashed fhe niotorcycle of Gautaxa Viswas, as a result ofwhich, he sustained grievous iajuries and died during fhe course of treatment aad it is not proved that tiie offendiag niotorcycle bearing Regn,no. C.G.19-A/0669 was driven ui breach of poUcy conditions. The Tribunal has

¶24

awarded Rs.3,59,000/- which fhe claimants are entitled to receive as compensation.

¶25

It is not in dispute fhat at fhe time ofaccident, respondent no.3 Vijay Kumar Nag was driviag the motorcycle bearing Regn,No.C.G. 19-3/0669 which belongs to respondent U0.4/R.P. Nag who was the fafher ofrespondeut no.3.

¶26

The Tribunal has assessed the nionthly iaconie as Rs.3000/per inonfh aad the aanual iacome as Rs.36,000/-. -It has deductedl/3rd towards personal and llviag expenses, but siace the deceased was bachelor, one-half(l/2) should have been the staiidard deduction aad fhus the total aanual iacome should have been assessed by fhe Tribunal as Rs.18,000/instead of Rs.24,000/-. The Tribunal has applied niultiplier 15 which seeins to be on higher side. In the iastaat case, fhe parents beiag clamiaats, the age of fhe parents^{hastobeconsidercd.Theageoftheclaioiaatson} the date of accident was 48 and 47 years respectively aad fhey fall wifhia fhe age group of 46 to 50 years. Therefore^ according to fhe multipUer scale given ia Sorla Verma (Smt.) -vs' Delhi Transpart CarparaUan and cinother (Para 40) reported in (2009) SCC 121, miiltipUer 13 should have been inade appUcable. Thus the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,34,000/(Rs. 18,000 x 13). Besides this, we grant Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate, Rs, 10,000/each for loss of love aad affection (total Rs.20,000/- to both fhe claunaats) and Rs. 5000/- for funeral expenses which ia all coiaes to Rs,35,000/- under the otlier heads. Ifwe add Rs.35,000/- to the total loss of

¶27

^^^% :<^3::.

¶28

-,,r:.;.^

¶29

dependency that is Rs.2,34,000/- the total compensation comes to Rs.2,69,000/- which the claimaats^{areentitledto} receive from fhe appeUaat. Accordingly, fhe award of fhe Tribunal that is Rs.3,59,000/- is reduced to Rs.2,69,000/-.

¶30

In fhe result, fhe appeal is allowed ia part. The impugned award dated 26.03.2009 is modt&ed to fhe above extent. The rest of the conditions mentioned ia. the award of flie Tribunal

¶31

shaU reniaio. ia tact. No order as to costs.

¶32

Sd/I.M.Quddusi Judge

¶33

Sd/Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge

¶34

Rao

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Niranjan Viswas and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Niranjan Viswas 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

Madhu Soni Vs Munnalal Soni

The Oriental Insurance Comp.Ltd. Vs Smt. Dhurputa and Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Others Vs Smt Archana Choubey and Others

Munni Bai @ Bhagwati Bai Vs Prabhat Singh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs M/S Raipur Metal Products Private Ltd.

N. R. Garud Vs State of C.G. and Ors.