In an appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's compensation award, the appellant claimed enhancement. The Division Bench, relying on Sarla Verma, dismissed the appeal, holding the appellant not dependent on the deceased unmarried son.
The appeal was dismissed; compensation was not enhanced.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
//"^
y & __
fi ^asSs^
^ •^-
'%... 's?"
~'!5s'a&£^
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
DIVISION BENCH
CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J.
Misc. Appeal fC) No. 54 of 2008
Appellant Applicant
Virendra Mishra, aged about 51 years, son of late Shri Rajni Mishra, resident of village Pandhriya, post Pandhriya, police station Chatiya, district Rohtas (Bihar)
VERSUS
Respondents Non-applicants
Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act.
Present: Shri Devershi Thakur, counsel on behalf of Shri Rakesh Thakur, counsel for the appellant.
Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3.
'<: ^. ^ ^Y
ORDER
•th (05'"September,2011)
i'%iyi>:
M.A.C.No.54of2008
v/f^
••••^^'.^:'^"^^
^)
The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.
This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29'.08.2007, passed in Claim Case No. 106/2005.
Sunil Kumar.
<
M.A.C.No. 54 of 2008
"31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribufion to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters wi!i not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. 32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by ' parents and siblings, only the mother would be cpnsidered to be a dependant, and 50% would be
MAC.No. 54 of 2008
^s^
treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased,as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribLition to the family will be taken as two-third."
l(U _No order as to costs.
Sd/Chief Justice
Sd/-
N.KAgarwa!
Judge
subbu
<br>~.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in awarding low compensation to the father of the deceased.
Whether the father of an unmarried deceased son is entitled to compensation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and anotherRelied on¶36
(2009) 6 SCC 121 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Virendra Mishra
Bhopal Singh
Ramesh Patel
3 National Insurance Company Limited
Rajeev Gupta
N.K. Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
