Dismissed

Smt.Pushpha Bai v. the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC13 Jun 2012MA/1325/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed the appellant's appeal against the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding Rs. 60,000 for the death of an 8-year-old child. Following the Supreme Court precedent in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Syed Ibrahim, the court found the amount just and proper.

What did the court decide?

Appeal against enhancement of compensation dismissed; no order as to costs.

Smt.Pushpha Bai Vs the Oriental Insurance… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR DiVISIONBENCH

¶2

CORAM:

¶3

HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRISUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶4

Misc. ADDealNo. 1325 of 2004

¶5

APPELLANT CLAIMANT

¶6

Smt. Pushpa Bai, wife of late Nirantar, caste Rajwar, aged about 33 years, residentof village Sarma, P.S. and Tah. Surajpur, distt. Surguja, present address village Bansipur, P.S. Pratappur, distt. Surguja C.G.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

ReSDondents

¶9

The Oriental Insurance Co. Limited, "through its branch Manager, Banaras Chowk, Ambikapur, distt. Surguja C.G. (InsuranceCo.) fl

¶10

ParasnathGupta, son of Jhulan Gupta, aged about 35 years, occupation vehicle owner, resident Sattipara, P.S. and Tah. Ambikapur, district Surguja C.G. (Owner)

¶11

Chandradeo-'Ram, son of Shri Kothari. Ram, aged about28 years, resideritof village Jardeeh, tah. Saamri, distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Ramjjt, son ofRampyari, resident -,.of village Podi, post Kewra, P.S. Pratappur, distt. Surguja C.G.

¶13

hfllSC.APPEAL UNDERSECTION173 OFIVIOTOR

VEHICLEAGT.1988

M.A.No.1325 of 2004

itl>,

Shri Pravesh Sharma, counsel for respondentNo.1. None for respondentsNo. 2 and3 though served.

¶18

Shri D.N. Prajapati, counsel for respondent No.4.

¶19

•9

¶20

ORDER (13tl'June,2012)

¶21

The following order of the Court was passed by

¶22

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.

¶23

This isclaimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident 'the Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, district Surguja, (forshort Tribunal') vide award dated 04.09.2004, passed in Claim Case No.35/2003.

¶24

As againstthe compensation of Rs.10,20,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant, unfortunate mother of deceased girl Neeta @ Guddi.aged about 8 years, by filing a claim petition underSection 166ofthe MotorVehicles Act, for her death in the motoraccident on 29.01.2002, the Tribuna'l awarded a total sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation along with iriterest @ 7% per annum from,the date offiling ofthe claim petition till the date of actual payment. •t ^ , -.«. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that the claimant's daughterNeeta @ Guddi died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on29.01.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent

¶25

M.A.No.1325 of 2004

¶26

driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Minibus bearing registration No.M.P.26/C5705; as the above offending vehicle Minibus, on the date of-the accident, was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the claimant.

¶27

The Tribunal considering that the claimant's daughter deceased Neeta @ Guddi wasaged about 8 years only on the date of the accident awarded lump-sum compensation of Rs.60,000/- to the claimant. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.60,000/- @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date ofactual payment.

¶28

Shri Ashish Surana,; learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.60,000/- only though the claimant's daughter Neeta @ Guddi would have extended great support to her mother claimant Smt. Pushpa Bai in her old age.

¶29

Shri Pravesh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.1, theOriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer ofthe offendihgtvehicleMinibusT on the otherhand, supported^the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.60,000/awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and ciFCumstances of the present case.

ICS^

M.A.No.1325 of 2004

.^z

'"!!. ^'.••""•^..."ss, v .y /

¶34

Shri D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel for respondent No.4 Ramjit, also supported the award.

¶35

Deceased girl Neeta @ Guddi admittedly wasaged about 8 years on the date of the accident. The sole claimant in the case Smt. Pushpa Bai is her mother. Respondent No.4 Ramjit claimed that deceased Neeta @ Guddi was his daughter. 9) The Apex Court while considering as to what would be the just^and proper^{compensationforthedeathofachildaged} about 7 years in thecase of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Syed Ibrahim and others, reported in 2007 (4) TAC-385 (SC) observed in paras 9 & 10 :

¶36

"9. This Court in Lata Wadhwa while computing compensation made distinction between the deceased children falling within the age group of 5 to 10 years and age group of 10 to 15 years.

¶37

¶38

In cases of youngchildren of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, neither their income at thetimeof death nor the prospects of the future increase in their income nor chances of advancement of their career are eapable of proper determination o estimated basis. The reason is that at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to their.academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonablecertainty. Therefore, neither is the income of the deceased child capable of assessment on'estimated basis nor is the finaricial loss suffered by the parents capable of mathematical computation."

¶39

:'.:^^T"~'>
,ii>-"'"^ 1.
os'asfc,^^SSt^^ ;
..^

¶40

M.A.No.1325 of 2004

¶41

¶42

The Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Syed Ibrahim and others (supra) held that the compensation of Rs.51,500/- was just and proper compensation for thedeath of a child aged about sevenyears.

¶43

The compensation of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (supra) and the fact that the claimants' daughter Neeta @ Guddi, was aged about 8 years only, we are satisfied, is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶44

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

¶45

Nporder as to costs.

¶46

Sd/-
Sd/-
Sunil KumarSinha
Chief Justice Judge

¶47

nimmi

Smt.Pushpha Bai v. the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Pushpha Bai v. the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.and Ors.

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

Ravishankar Sahu Vs Janak Ram and Others

Nerus Kujur Vs State of C.G.

B.P. Tiwari Vs State of C .G. and Ors.

Smt.Laxmaniyan Bai and Others Vs the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.and Ors.

Chamarin Bai Vs State

Raj Kumar Vs State