Dismissed

Mormukut Yadav and Others v. Anil Kumar Baghel and Others

Chhattisgarh HC5 Aug 2011MAC/607/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Motor Accident Claims appeal, the High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the claimants' plea for enhancement of compensation. Upholding the Tribunal's award, the Court found the evidence insufficient to prove a higher income of Rs. 20,000/month and held the assessed sum of Rs. 4,29,000 was just and proper compensation for the death.

What did the court decide?

Appeal filed for enhancement of compensation is dismissed.

Mormukut Yadav and Others Vs Anil Kumar Baghel… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

/fi?^^y
f ^^. i
1 '^SS^ S
^ '%^../^>

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

DIVISION BENCH

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE SH HON'BLE SH Misc. Ap	RI RAJEEVGUPTA, C.J. & RI N.K. AGARWAL, J. peal (C) No. 607 of2007
Applicants/ Appellants 1..	Mormukut Yadav, aged about 51 (50) years son of late Shri Khemraj Yadav, occupation Milk Vender (Small Dairy)
2.	Smt. Pushpa Devi Yadav, aged about 48 (47) years wife of Shri Mormukut Yadav, occupation Housewife;
3.	Smt. Poonam Yadav, aged abbut 20 (21) years, wife of late Shri Pramil KumarYadav;
4.	Ritesh Yadav, aged about 1 year and 04 month (04 month) minor son of late Shri Pramil Kumar Yadav, through natural guardian mother Smt. Poonam Yadav; All are residents of Kalinder Chal, Tulsipur Ward No.16, Rajnandgaon, Police Station, tahsil and district Rajnandgaon C.G. VERSUS
Non-applicants 1, Respondents ;\|Anil Kumar Baghel, aged about 29 (28) years, son of Shri Mohan Singh Baghel, occupation driver, resident of village Bhanwarkheda, post Tikri, police station Badul, district Seoni (M.P.) Surendra Singh Bajwa, aged about 46 (45) years son of Shri Pratap Singh Bahwa, G.E. Road Tatibandh, Raipur C.G.

M.A.C.No.607of2007

-€.

y ^r,

3 National Insurance Company Limited through Branch (A) 10, Vardhman Nagar Nagpur Old Bhandara Road, Vardhman Nagar, Nagpur, through Branch Office, Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and district Rajnandgaon C.G.

¶9

Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

¶10

Present: Shri P.K.C. Tiwari, Senior counsel with Shri Shashi Bhushan, counsel forthe appellants.

¶11

¶12

Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3.

ORDER

;th

(05InAugust,2011)

The following order of the Court was passed by

¶17

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.

¶18

This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 21.02.2007, passed in Claim Case No.51/2006.

¶19

As against the compensation of Rs.79,84,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents, widow and rtiinor son of deceased Pramil Kumar Yadav, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident in the intervening night of 15 and 16 February, 2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,29,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date'ofactual payment.

¶20

The Tribun^lona close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Pramil Kumar Yadav died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident in the intervening

M.A.C.No.607of2007

l:.-

night of 15th and 16th February, 2006; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CG04/G-0737; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

¶25

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

¶26

The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.36,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,84,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.45,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,29,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Pramil Kumar Yadav in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the aboye amount of compensation of Rs.4,29,000/- @ 9% per annum from the •i date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.'

¶27

Shri P.K.C. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Shashi Bhushan, learned counsel forthe appellants vehemently argued that

¶28

^v,^yy^ ',..,^r^^,., '^V-t -..Ssl%: V -^y

¶29

M.A.C.No.607of2007

¶30

the Tribunal has erred .in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 16; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.4,29,000/- only.

¶31

Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal has liberally awarded excessive sum of Rs.4,29,000/- as compensation to the claimants.

¶32

F-—

¶33

In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation 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.

¶34

Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.4,29,000/awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Pramil Kumar Yadav used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month by buying and selling cattle, no clinching evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.20,000/- per month. Neither any income-tax !\ return was prodyced before the Tribunal nor any license was produced to establteh the alleged occupation of the deceased of buying and selling caftle. In this state of evidence, we do not find

^,\

,..^

M.A.C.No.607of2007

any fault in the approach ofthe Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income on its own estimate at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/perannum.

¶39

The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting the usual 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses.

¶40

The multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribunal also considering the age of the deceased, his parents and widow, cannot be found fault with.

¶41

The Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding substantial amount of Rs.45,000/- urider other heads.

¶42

Even otherwise, the compensation of Rs.4,29,000/- awarded by the Tribunal considering the broad features of the case, can never be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in thisappeal.

¶43

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

¶44

No order as to costs.

¶45

Sd/-
Chief Justice

¶46

—^-—
Sd/-
N.K.Agarwal
Judge

¶47

subbu

Mormukut Yadav and Others v. Anil Kumar Baghel and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mormukut Yadav and Others v. Anil Kumar Baghel 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

Mohd.Shakeel Menon Vs Abhimanyu Devri and Others

Shiv Kumari Vs Devendra Singh and Others

Domar Singh Chandrakar Vs Shankarlal Kurmi and Others

Karan Singh and Ors. Vs Beniram and Ors.

Inmur Rahim Khan and Ors. Vs State of M.P.Now C.G.and Ors.

Smt.Shyama Bai Vs Collector,Mahasamund and Ors.