Partly allowed

Smt.Anjusha and Others v. Ashok Singh and Others

Chhattisgarh HC21 Jun 2012MA/1483/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The Court held that village labourers work 30 days a month, not 24, and recomputed the dependency and interest, increasing the award from Rs. 2,97,160 to Rs. 3,16,600.

What did the court decide?

The compensation of Rs. 2,97,160 awarded by the Tribunal was enhanced to Rs. 3,16,600, with further interest of Rs. 2,560.

Smt.Anjusha and Others Vs Ashok Singh and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR DIVISION BENCH

¶3

¶4

	CORAM:	HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEVGUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc.Appeal No. 1483 of2005
f ^^	Appellants Claimants	1. 2. Smt. Anjusha wife of late Shri Chhatrakup, aged about 23 years, occupation housewife; Lalita d/o late Shri Chhatrakup, aged about 1 7i years, minor, through her natural guardian mother Smt. Anjusha wife of late Shri Chhatrakup;
		3. Ramdhani Ram son of Shri Dhansai, aged about 50 years, occupation Dependant;
		4. Smt. Lilo wife of Shri Ramdhani, aged about 48 years, occupation Dependant; AII appellants are castes Uraon, resident of police station Kusmi, tahsll Kusmi, district Surguja C.G. VERSUS
	Respondents	1. Ashok Singh son of Shri Chandrika aged about 23 years, occupation Driver, resident of village Kusmi, tahsil Kusmi, districtSurguja C.G.
		2. Jasim son of Shri Hasim, aged about 28 years, occupation Shopkeeper, owner of vehicle, resident of Bus Stand Kusmi, police station Kusmi, district Surguja C.G.
		3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, Branch near Ambedkar Chowk, main road, Ambikapur, district Surguja C.G. .BSgii

MA.No. 1483 of 2005

MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLEACT.1988

¶9

¶10

Present: Shri Sushil Dubey, counsel for the appellants. Ms. Neha Verma, counsel for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, counsel for respondent No.3.

¶11

ORDER

¶12

(21st June, 2012)

¶13

The following order of the Court was passed by

¶14

RajeevGupta, C.J.

¶15

¶16

This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 03.12.2004, passed jn Claim Case No. 12/2004.

¶17

As against the compensation of Rs.13,50,000/- claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow, minor daughter and parents of deceased Qhhatrakup, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehides Act, for his death in the motor accident on 28.03.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,97,160/- as compensation along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

¶18

The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Chhatrakup died on account of the

IISSSBii

MANo. 1483 of 2005

injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 28.03.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Jeep bearing registration No.C.G.15-ZD/0552; as the above offending vehicle Jeep 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 compensation to the claimants.

¶26

As the insurer of the above offending vehicle Jeep has not filed any appeal against the impugned award challenging the above findings recorded by the Tribunal, the same now have attained finality.

¶27

¶28

The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.70/- per day and Rs.1,680/- per monthassuming that the deceased was getting work only for 24 days in a month. By deducting 1/4 of Rs.1,680/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.1,260/- per month and Rs.15,120/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependeri^y of Rs.15,120/- with the multiplier of 18, the compensatjon was worked out to Rs.2,72,160/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.25,000/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,97,160/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Chhatrakup in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,97.160/@^8% per

-BiMSSiS

M.A.No.1483 of 2005

AC'"^ (:7&..,.-^ife % '%; -<,..Ji

¶33

annum from the dateof filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

'^.

Shri Sushil Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assuming that the deceased was getting work only for 24 days in a month and assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1,680/only though his daily income was assessed at Rs.70/-; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,97,1607- only.

¶39

Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Jeep, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensationof Rs.2,97,160/awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶40

Ms. Neha Verma, learned counsel for respondents No.1 Ashok Singh and No.2 Jasim, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle Jeep, also supported the award.

¶41

The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.70/- per day. The monthly income of the deceased has been assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.1,680/assuming that the deceased was getting work only for 24 days in a month. In our opinion, the above assessment of the monthly income of the deceased by the Tribunal cannot be upheld as persons working as labour in villages do not get weekly holiday and as such work for all the 30 days in a month. We, therefore, propose to

^t"""i'^ s

MA.No. 1483 of 2005

recompute the compensation taking the monthly income of the deceased atRs.2,100/-.

¶46

¶47

'Y..'

¶48

By deducting the usual 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.1,400/- per month and Rs.16,800/- per annum. 11) Considering that deceased Chhatrakup was aged about 25 years, the multiplier of 18 selected by the Tribunal is appropriate. 12) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.16,800/- with the multiplier of 18 the compensation works out to Rs.3,01,600/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. The claimants, thus, become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.3,16,600/- as compensation for the death of deceased Chhatrakup in the motor accident.

¶49

The claimants are further awarded a sum of Rs.2,560/towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.19,440/-.

¶50

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimantSfor enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.2,97,160/- awarded by the Tribunal isenhanced to Rs.3,16,6007- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.2,560/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 19.440/-.

¶51

Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is three months' time for depositing the total granted sum of Rs.22,000/(Rupees twenty-two thousand only)

^. ^"'s'^ ;:./.:'.!^

,-^^ :'i ^^ h/' ^. ^—^

¶56

MANo. 1483 of 2005

¶57

(Rs.19,440/towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.2,560/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced

¶58

amount of compensation of Rs.19,440/-) before the concerning

¶59

Claims Tribunal.

¶60

No order as to costs.

¶61

¶62

Sd/Chief Justice

¶63

Sd/Sunil Kumar Sinhaj Judge

¶64

nlmml

¶65

Y.'

¶66

Smt.Anjusha and Others v. Ashok Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Anjusha and Others v. Ashok Singh 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

Gobaru @ Gobardhan and Ors. Vs State

Shambhoo Singh and Ors. Vs State

Neela Vati Vs Dhan Singh and Others

Ku.Jhameshwari and Ors. Vs Babla @ Suresh Kumar and Others

Gangaram and Anr. Vs the State of M.P.

Ram Prasad Vs State