Partly allowed

Shiv Kumar Dewangan v. Ramesh Kumar Sahu and Others

Chhattisgarh HC3 Aug 2011MAC/356/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced the motor accident compensation awarded by the Tribunal against the insurer. Re-evaluating income and multiplier based on the deceased's age and family dependency, the Court awarded additional compensation of Rs. 94,000/- to the appellant despite rejecting unsubstantiated shop income evidence.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 87,000/- to Rs. 94,000/- with Rs. 1,000/- quantified interest.

Shiv Kumar Dewangan Vs Ramesh Kumar Sahu and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

^b...
'i^s<^-
^..

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

DIVISION BENCH

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J.

¶5

Misc. Appeal (0 No. 356 of 2007

¶6

Appellant		Shiv Kumar Dewangan, age 35 yrs,
Claimant		s/o late Lakhan Lal Dewangan, r/o
		Imli Bhata, P.S. & Tahsil Mahasamund, distt. Mahasamund C.G. VERSUS
Respondents	1.	Ramesh Kumar Sahu, age 23 years, s/o Raghunandan Sahu, r/o Ravan Bhata, Mandir Hasaud, P.S. Mandir Hasaud, dist. Raipur C.G. (Driver of the Truck-Dumper NO.C.G.04/J-3800)
	2.	Anil Jadhwani, s/o Naresh Jadhwani, r/o D/243, Devendra Nagar, Sector4, Raipur, distt. Raipur C.G. (Owner bf the Truck-Dumper NO.C.G.04/J-3800)
	3	The National Insurance Com. Ltd. Divisional Office at kachhari Chowk, Raipur, distt. Raipur C.G. (Ins. Com. of the Truck-Dumper NO.C.G.04/J-3800)

¶7

Misc. Aopeal under Section 173 ofthe MotorVehicle Act.

¶8

Present: Shri J.A. Lohani, counsel for the appellant. Shri Devershi Thakur, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri ShreekumarAgrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Anartd Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3.

¶9

ORDER

¶10

^rd (03roAugust,2011)

J-.-

"vr

""^,\

Misc. Appeal (C) No. 356 of2007

¶15

£^'

¶16

The following order of the Court was passed by

¶17

Rajeev Gupta, CJ.

¶18

This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (fpr short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 27.11.2006, passed in Claim Case No.30/2006.

¶19

As against the compensation of Rs.29,25,000/- claimed by the appellanV claimant, unfortunate son of deceased Dulaurin Bai, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 07.03.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.87,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

¶20

The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led beforeit held the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Dumper bearing registration No.C.G.04J/3800, liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) As the insurer of the above offending vehicle Dumper has not filed any appeal challenging the above finding recorded by the Tribunal, the same now has attained finality.

¶21

The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/annum on the basis of the notional income per prescribed in th^ Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Ao$. By deducting 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses, the claimant's dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/per annum. By

¶22

Misc.Appeal (C) No. 356 of 2007

¶23

multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 5, the compensation was worked out to Rs.50,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.37,000/- under other heads, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.87,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the death of his mother Dulaurin Bai in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.87,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

¶24

Shri J.A. Lohani, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimant's evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing her income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 5; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.87,000/- only.

¶25

Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Dumper, on the other hand, supported the award and contended .*; that as claimant's mother deceased Dulaurin Bai was aged about 65 years on the date of the accident, the compensation of Rs.87,000/awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 8) Shri Devershi Thakur, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the owner of the bffending vehicle Dumper, also supported the \ award.

¶26

True, the claim^nt pleaded that his mother deceased Dulaurin Bai used to earn Rs.500/- per day from her shop, no cogent and

¶27

Misc. Appeal (C) No. 356 of2007

¶28

reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish that the deceased was running any shop at all. 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.

¶29

Nevertheless, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 15,0007- per annum in the year 2006 is certainly on the lower side and requires reconsideration.

¶30

^^.

¶31

Considering the fact that deceased Dulaurin Bai was aged about 65 years, in the village it is quite common that even old members of the family go for work to support the family, we are of the opinion that the deceased could have easily earned Rs.70-75/per^{dayevenbyworkingasanunskilledlabourinthe} year^2006. We, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/per^annum.

¶32

As there were only two members in the family i.e, deceased Dulaurin Bal herself and the sole claimant in the case her son Shiv Kumar Dewangan, we deem it proper to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses. The claimant's dependency, therefore, is assessed at Rs.12,000/- per annum.

¶33

Considering that deceased Dulaurin Bai was aged about 65 years, we are^of the opinion that appropriate multiplier in the case would be 7, in vie^ of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein

¶34

Misc. Appeal (C) No. 356 of2007

¶35

multiplier of 7 has been prescribed for the age group between 61-65 years.

¶36

By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,OOQ/- with the multiplier of 7 the compensation works out to Rs.84,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate, the claimant becomes entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.94,000/- as compensation for the death of his mother Dulaurin Bai in the motor accident.

¶37

The claimant is further awarded Rs.1,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.7,000/-.

¶38

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellanV claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.87,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.94,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.1,0007- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.7,000/-. 17) Respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.8,000/(Rs.7,000/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.1,000/towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.7,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 18) No order as to costs. . ______

¶39

Sd(Chief Justice

¶40

Sd/N.K. Agarwal Judge

¶41

nimml

Shiv Kumar Dewangan v. Ramesh Kumar Sahu and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar Dewangan v. Ramesh Kumar Sahu 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

Smt. Ombati Singh and Ors. Vs Gurudayal Sinha and Ors.

Vinod Kumar Vs Md. Idrish Ali and Others

Smt.Sukhmati Vs Idrish Ali and Others

Vinod Kumar Ahlawat and Anr. Vs Shatruhanlal Chaturvedi and Anr.

Kusum Bai and Others Vs Rajendra Verma and Others

Mohd.Shakeel Menon Vs Abhimanyu Devri and Others