Allowed

G.Narayan Swami v. Rai Sing Sahu and Others

Chhattisgarh HC1 Apr 2011MAC/361/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses an appeal by the father of the deceased seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The High Court held that the awarded sum was just and proper, noting the deceased's low income and the choice of multiplier.

What did the court decide?

The appeal seeking enhancement of compensation is dismissed and no further relief is granted.

G.Narayan Swami Vs Rai Sing Sahu and Others — Money Laundering | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

^^^Sfi

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

OIVISIONBENCH

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE SH HON'BLE SH	RI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & RI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J.
IVIisc. App	eal(0 No. 361^t 2006
ADpeIIant Claimant	G. Narayan Swami, S/o Jagnnath Swami, aged about 50 years, R/o WRS Police Station - Urla, Raipur District-Raipur(CG) VERSUS
Respondents Non-Claimants	Rai Singh Sahu, aged about 40 years, S/o Ram Singh Sahu, R/o Gandhi Chowk, Village- Dallirajhara, District Durg (CG)
	Hajur Singh, S/o Jwala Singh, R/o Gurunanak Nagar, Village Dallirajhara, District Durg (CG)
	The National Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Office of Mobin Mahal, GE Road, Raipur, District ^- Raipur (CG)
MISC. APPEAL UNDE VEH	Rajesh Bhawnani, S/o Satish Bhawnani, R/o Naharpara, Police Station - Ganj, Raipur, district-- Raipur (CG) R SECTION 173 (21 OF THE MOTOR ICLESACT,1988.

¶5

Present: Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel for the appellant. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3.

ORDER

ist (015IApril,2011)

/^4

'/"^
-../' ^

The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.

¶11

The unfortunate father of deceased N Ramchandran Swami is appellant before us in this appeal for enhancement of fhe compensation awarded by the 11 Additional MotorAccident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.06.2006, passed in Claim Case No.01/2005.

¶12

As against the compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant, unfortunate father of deceased N Ramchandran Swami by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 12.07.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,63,000/as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,63,000/only, as the appellant's son N Ramchandran Swami would have extended great support to the appellant in his old age.

¶13

Shri Dasarath Gupta, learnecl counsel for respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand,supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,63,000/- awarded by the.Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to^warrant enhancement in this appeal.

¶14

¶15

In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compehsation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza.

¶16

Now we shall examine as to whether the compensationof Rs.2,63,000/awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensationin the facts and circumstancesof the present case. 7) The claimant cannot have any legitimate grievance about the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.48,000/- per annum as the claimant himself pleaded and proved that the income ofthe deceased was at Rs.4,000/- per month.

¶17

The Tribunal has been quite liberal in deducting only 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, though the deduction in that behalf could have been to the extent of 50% of the income of the deceased considering that the deceased was unmarried on the date of the accident and there were only two members in the family i.e. the deceased himself and the sole claimant, his father,'dependent on the income ofthe deceased.

¶18

As the claimant was father of the deceased and was aged about 55 years, multiplier of 8 selected by the Tribunal cannot be-

found faultwith.

For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11) The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement ofthe compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶24

No order as to costs. sr.i Sd/Chief Justice

¶25

s&'R.N. Chandrakar Judge

¶26

subbu

G.Narayan Swami v. Rai Sing Sahu and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Narayan Swami v. Rai Sing Sahu 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

Ramvilas Verma and Ano. Vs Kedar Nath and Ors.

Baleshwar Das Vaishnav Vs Dansai Sahu and Others

R.Rajendra Prasad and Another Vs Banke Babu Shukla and Others

Hariram and Others Vs Mainejar Yadav and Others

Mahendra Sahgal and Another Vs Mohd.Saiyyad Nafis and Others

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