Dismissed

Shiv Kumari v. Devendra Singh and Others

Chhattisgarh HC4 Aug 2011MAC/962/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an appeal filed by the widow of a deceased motor accident victim seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Court upheld the Tribunal's assessment of income, multiplier, and total compensation, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal for enhancement of compensation was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Shiv Kumari Vs Devendra Singh and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

¶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(0 No. 962 of2008
Appellant Claimant toefore the Tribunal	Shiv Kumari, widow of Dileshwar Verma, aged about 24 years, r/o village Godi (S) P.S. Bhatapara, distt. Raipur C.G. VERSUS
Respondents Non-applicant Before the Tribunal	Devendra Singh s/o Jaipal, aged about40 years, occupation Driver r/o village Shahadpur, distt. Buldashher, (U.P.)Vehide No.H.R.47/8354
	Rakesh Pandey s/o R.C. Pandey, aged about 32 years, r/o D-11, Ratnagiri Raisen Road, distt. Bhopal M.P. (Owner of the vehicle No.H.R. 47/8354)
	The New India Insurance Company Mandal Office, distt. Bhopal (M.P.) (Insurance Company of the vehicle No.H.R.47/8354)
	Devnarayan, s/o Birbal Verma, aged about 50 years.
	Smt. Keja Bai, w/o Devnarayan Verma, aged about 45 years, both r/o villageGodi (S) P.S. Bhatapara, distt. Raipur C.G.

¶5

hflemo of appeal under Section 173 of the IVIotorVehicles Act.

¶6

Present: Shri N.K. Malviya, counsel for the appellant. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Ashok Soni, counsel for respondents No.4 & 5.

ORDER

th 04InAugust,2011)

Misc. Appeal (C) No. 962 of2008

¶11

The following order of the Court was passed by

¶12

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.

¶13

This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara, district Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 17.04.2008, passed in Claim Case No. 19/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.9,15,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant, unfortunate widow of deceased Dileshwar Verma by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 12.08.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,76,400/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

¶14

. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that the claimant's husband Dileshwar Verma died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 12.08.2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Trailor bearing registration No.J-f.R.47/8354; as the above offending vehicle Trailor 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 Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) As' the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now

¶15

attained finality.

¶16

'''-'%•<-'

¶17

Misc. Appeal (C) No. 962 of2008

¶18

The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,400/- per month and Rs.28,800/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 of Rs.28,800/- towards the personal expenses ofthe deceased, the claimant's dependency was assessed at Rs. 19.200/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.19,200/- with the multiplier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,26,400/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.50,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,76,4007- as compensation to the claimant for the death of her husband Dileshwar Verma in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,76,400/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

¶19

Shri N.K. Malviya, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimant's eviderice about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.2,400/- per month only; in selecting the lower multiplier of 17; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,76,400/- only.

¶20

Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company Limited the insurer of the offending vehicle Trailor, on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal has liberally awarded excessive sum of Rs.3,76,400/- as compensation to the claimant.

¶21

Shri Ashok Soni, learned counsel for respondents No.4 Devnarayan and No,5 Smt. Keja Bai, the parents of

¶22

Misc. Appeal (C) No. 962 of2008

¶23

deceased Dileshwar Verma supported the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant.

¶24

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.

¶25

Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.3,76,400/awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) Deceased Dileshwar Verma was aged about 28 years on the date of the accident. He was a Mason by occupation. The claimant pleaded^{thatthedeceasedusedtoearnRs.5,000/-} per^month.The Tribunal considering that the deceased was working as Mason in a village assessed his income at Rs.80/- per day; Rs.2,400/- per month; and Rs.28,800/- per annum.

¶26

On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the evidence available on record, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.80/- per day; Rs.2,400/- per month; and Rs.28,800/perannum.

¶27

The claimant's 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.

¶28

¶29

The multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunal also cannot be said to be on the lower side as deceased Dileshwar Verma was

¶30

Misc. Appeal (C) No. 962 of2008

¶31

aged about 28 years and the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, repori:ed in (2009) 6 SCC 121 prescribes the multiplier of 17 for the age group between 26-30 years.

¶32

The Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding substantial amount of Rs.50,000/- under other heads.

¶33

For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased or the claimant's dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected.

¶34

The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

¶35

No order as to costs.

Sd/Chief Justice

Sd/N.K-Agarwai Judge

subbu

•.
-

Shiv Kumari v. Devendra Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumari v. Devendra Singh 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

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

Kusum Bai and Others Vs Rajendra Verma and Others

Shiv Kumar Dewangan Vs Ramesh Kumar Sahu and Others

Mohd.Shakeel Menon Vs Abhimanyu Devri and Others

Domar Singh Chandrakar Vs Shankarlal Kurmi and Others

D.S. Chandraker and Others Vs Shanker Lal and Others