Partly allowed

Gopalmani Nirmalkar and Others v. Rajkumar and Others

Chhattisgarh HC4 Apr 2011MAC/196/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this claimants' appeal regarding a motor accident death, the High Court found the Tribunal's assessment of the deceased's income insufficient. The Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 1,80,000 to Rs. 2,39,000 and allowed the appeal in part.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 1,80,000 to Rs. 2,39,000 with quantified interest of Rs. 6,000 payable by the insurer within three months.

Gopalmani Nirmalkar and Others Vs Rajkumar and… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

'^..

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

DIVIStONBENCH

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLESHRIRAJEEVGUPTA,C.J.& HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J.

¶6

Mi	sc.App	eal (C) No. 196of2007
Appellants Claimants	1. 2.	Gopalmani Nirmalkar son of Shri Jailal Nirmalkar, aged about 40 years; Devanand son of Shri GQpalmani Nirmalkar, agedabout 13years.
	3.	Ravendra son of Shri Gopalmani Nirmalkar, agedabout9years.
		The appellant No. 2 and 3 are minore, throigh their natural guardian father Gqsalmani Nirmalkar. Alt residents of Viltage Puri, Tahsll andDistrict Dhamtari C.G.
		VERSUS
Respondents	1.	Rajkumar son of Shri Krishna Ram Patel, resident of Ashoknagar Gudhiyari, RaipurC.G.
	2.	Gopichand Chhelani son of Shri Vishnuram Chhelanl, resklent of JantaCoionyGudhiyari, RaipurG.G.
MISC.APPEA	3. L UND VEH	The New India Insurance Company Limited, Thakkar Bhawan, G.E. Road, Bhilai, district DurgC.G. ERSECTION 173OFTHE MOTOR ICLESACT.1988.

¶7

Present: Shri P.P. Sahu and Shri U.P.S. Sahu, counsel fortheappellants. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counset for respondent No.3.

¶8

!j S
1 g ^"~JS s
l'<•<•».. <

¶9

ORDER

¶10

(4th April, 2011)

¶11

The following order of the Court was passed by

¶12

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.

¶13

This is claimants' appeal for enhancemert of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short the Tribunal') vide award dated 27.re.2006, passed in Claim Case No. 156/^05.

¶14

Asagainstthecompensation ofRs.13,07,(XX)/-claimedby the appeltants/ claimants, unfortunate husband and sons of deceased Rooplata by fiting a clalm petltion under Sectton 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 14.03.20)5, the Tribunat awaided a total sum of Rs.1,80,0(X)/- as compensation to the claimants along with inta'est @ 6% per annum in the event of insurer's failure to deposit the amount of compensation within 30 days ofthe passing ofthe award.

¶15

The Tribunal on a ctose scrutiny of the entire evidence lal before it held that deceased Rooplata died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 14.03.2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Metador bearing registration No,G.G.04/ZB-0701; as the above offending vehicte Metador on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Gompany was liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

x •^:

^. ^

y t^5i»

4} As the respondents have not flled any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality.

¶20

The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Sectimi 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3Id of Rs.15,000/- towards the pereonal expenses of the deceased, the clamants' 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.20,000/- uncter other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,W),OOWas compensation to the claimants for the deatti of deceased Rooplata in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- @ 6% per annum in the event of insurer's failure to deposit the a'mount of compensation within 30 days of the pa^ing ofthe award.

¶21

Shri P.P.Sahu and Shri U.P.S. Sahu, teamed Gounsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and inassessing her income at Rs.15,(X)0/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- only.

¶22

¶23

( ^

¶24

Shri Dashrath Gupta, leamedcounset for respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicte Metador, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,80,000/awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper comperreation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case.

¶25

In a motor accident claim case, what is importait is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensatlon in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of

¶26

compensation, nor a Bonanza.

¶27

1. Now we shall examine as to whettiw the compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 10) True; the claimants pleaded that deceased Rooptata used to eam Rs.70-100/- per day by stitching clothes, no cogent and retiable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the above occupation of the deceased and her income to that extent. In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income ofthe deceased.

¶28

Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per annum in the year 2005 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration.

¶29

3-^.-

¶30

¶31

Considering that deceased Rooplata, on the date of the accident, was ^ed about 40 years, we are of the opinion that she could have easily eamed Rs.70-75/- per day in the year 20(» even by woriong as an unskllled labour. We, ttrerefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased ad Rs.2,0)0/- per month and Rs.24,00)/- per annum. 13) By deducting the usual 1/3"' of Rs.24,000/- towards the personat^{Oqsensesofthedeceased,theclaimants'dependency} is assessed at Rs.16,000/- per annum.

¶32

Considering theage ofthe deceased and her husband, we are ofthe opinion that multiptier of 14 would be ap|M'opriate in the present^case.

¶33

By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,000/- with the multiplier of 14 the compensation works out to Rs.2,24,CUO/-. 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 husband. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.2,39,(XX)/- as compensation for the death of deceased Rooplata In the motor accident.

¶34

Leamed counsel for the parties submitted that with a view to avoid any possible dispute between the parties before the Tribunal about the period for which the clatmants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensatton may be quantified in this appeal itself.

¶35

^ ^

¶36

Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, including the delay in disposal of the ctaim petttton, and the present appeat and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed for the entire delay in the matter, we quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.59,(X)Q/- at Rs.6,000/-.

¶37

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunat is enhanced to Rs.2,39,000/- with further quantifled amount of interest of Rs.6,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.59,000/-.

¶38

Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.65,000/towards enhanced amount of (Rs.59,000/compensation + Rs.6,000/- towards quantified amount of inter^t on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.99,CW/-) before

¶39

the conceming Claims Tribunat.

¶40

No order as to ccffits.

¶41

Sd/-
Sd/-
R-N. Chandrakar
Chief Justice
Judge

¶42

padma

Gopalmani Nirmalkar and Others v. Rajkumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopalmani Nirmalkar and Others v. Rajkumar 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

Hariram and Others Vs Mainejar Yadav and Others

Mahendra Sahgal and Another Vs Mohd.Saiyyad Nafis and Others

G.Narayan Swami Vs Rai Sing Sahu and Others

Smt. Puraeen Bai and Ors. Vs Nandkishore and Ors.

Nirmal Waswani Vs Narendra Pal Singh and Others

Smt.Hajari Bai and Others Vs Ramkumar Yadav and Others