Dismissed

Smt.Lagni Bai and Others v. Baisakhuram and Others

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jun 2012MA/1115/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the beneficiaries of a deceased labourer seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Court found the income assessment reasonable based on widow's evidence and rejected higher multiplier claims citing Sarla Verma precedent.

What did the court decide?

The appeal for enhancement of compensation is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Smt.Lagni Bai and Others Vs Baisakhuram and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

HIGH COURT^OFCH HATTISGARH^ATBILASPUR DIVIS ION BENCH

¶2

CORAM:

¶3

HON’LEB SHRI^{RAJEEVGUPTA,CJ.} HON’BLE SHRI^{SUNILKUMARSINHA,J.}

¶4

Misc. Appeal^{No.111 5of2004}

¶5

Appellants CIiana‘mts

¶6

Rden esponts

¶7

Smt. Lagni Bai Kurre, aged 33 years,^{wd/oIateRajaramIKurre.} Kamleshwari Kurre, aged 14 years. Lokesh Kumar Kurre, aged 1 2 years, Toshan Kumar Kurre, aged 9 years. All daughter^& son of Iate Shri '

¶8

Rajaram Kurre through their natural guardian Smt. Lagni Bai 'wd/o

¶9

Kurre Iate Shri Rajaram Kurre. Smt. Bhuri^{BaiKurre,agedabout} 60 years, wd/o Iate Khedram Kurre. AII rlo. village Barbhatha, post ;Bhilai (Arang)^{P.S.&Tah.Arang} Distt. Raiurp^C.G.

¶10

ERSUS Baisakhu Ram Banjare aged about 32 years, s/o Mehattar Ram Banjare (Driver)

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

Mehattar Ram Banjare aged about 65 years, slo Kapoorram Banjare g 7 ‘ i (Owneroftractor) Both R/o^{villageBarbhathaBhilai} , P.S. & Tah. Arang,‘ distt. Raipur C.G.

¶13

¶14

M.A. No. 1115 of 2004

¶15

The National Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office — 3, Middleton Street P.O. Bar 9229^— Kolkata 700 071 (Branch' at Mobin Mahal, G.E. Road, P.O. 122 Raipur C.G.

¶16

MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988

¶17

PrEe§ent

¶18

Shri M.K. Bhaduri, counsel forthe appellants.

¶19

Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.3.

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(15th^June,2012)

¶22

The following order of the Court was passed by

¶23

Raieev Gupta, C.J.

¶24

This is claimants’ appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident ‘the Claims Tribunal, Raipur, (for short Tribunal’) vide award dated 20.09.2004, passed in Claim Case No.29/20041 2) As against the compensation of Rs.9,00,000/— claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and mother of deceased Rajaram Kurre, by filing a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 27.02.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,07,000/— as compensation along with interest @ 6% per^{annumfromthedateoffilingoftheclaim} petition till the date of actual payment.

¶25

3 M.A. No. 1115 of 2004

¶26

1 Shri M.K. Bhaduri, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.45/— per day; Rs.1 ,35OI- per month; and Rs.16,200/per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,07,000/- only.

¶27

Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Naiional Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tractor—Trolley, on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal has erred in directing the Insurance Company to first pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and then recpver the same from the owner and driver of the offending veh‘icle Tractor-Trolley.

¶28

3 The claimants cannot have any legitimate grievance about the‘assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.45/per day; Rs.1,350/per month and Rs.16,200/— per annum as claimant No.1 Smt. Lagni Bai Kurre, widow of deceased Rajaram Kurre admitted in para 11 of her crossexamination that a male labour in the village was getting only Rs.40-45l- per day. ln this state of evidence, we do not nnd any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.45/- per day.

¶29

a The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.11,100/— per annum by deducting the usual 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal

expenses.

g A ‘V»

M.A. No. 1115 of 2004

¶35

The multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side considering that deceased Rajaram Kurre was aged about 38 years on the date of the accident and the dictum of he Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009)^6SCC121, prescribes^{multiplierof15fortheage} group between 36-40 years.

¶36

t ‘l§or 8) l the foregoing reasons, we do not tind any scope for l enh§ancement of the compensation awarded by the'Tribunal eith:er on account of the assessment of the income of the dedeased or the claimants’ dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected.

¶37

9)‘ The appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

¶38

10),: No order as to costs.

¶39

K» , ‘i ., r t.
Sdl- f Sd/-
Chief Justice l l Synil Kumar Sinh}
Judge
l 77»

Smt.Lagni Bai and Others v. Baisakhuram and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Lagni Bai and Others v. Baisakhuram 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

Chamarin Bai Vs State

Raj Kumar Vs State

Uma Bai Vs State

Ajit Singh Rajpal Vs Vijay Kumar and Others

Gobaru @ Gobardhan and Ors. Vs State

Shambhoo Singh and Ors. Vs State