Partly allowed

Neela Vati v. Dhan Singh and Others

Chhattisgarh HC20 Jun 2012MA/789/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award, the Division Bench affirmed the exoneration of the insurer due to policy breach and user of the policy for a pillion rider, but enhanced the compensation from Rs.60,600 to Rs.1,54,000 after recalculating the deceased's dependency and adding funeral and loss of estate claims.

What did the court decide?

The appeal for enhancement of compensation is allowed in part. The compensation is enhanced to Rs.1,54,000/- carrying interest.

Neela Vati Vs Dhan Singh and Others — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

DIVISION BENCH

¶3

CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI^{RAJEEVGUPTA,CJ.} ‘ HON’BLE SHRI^{SUNILKUMARSHA,} IN^J.

¶4

Mis'c. Appeal No.^789of2004

¶5

Appellant

¶6

Neelavati d/o^{DhanSinghYadav,} aged about 20 years, r/o

¶7

’ Baderajpur tah.^&dist. Keshakal, dist. Bastar C.G.

¶8

‘VERSUS

¶9

Respondents

¶10

Dhan Singh s/o Kavanlsai^Yadav aged about 50 years, r/o Baderajpur tah.^&dist. Keshakal, dist. Bastar C.G.

¶11

The National^{InsuranceCompany} Branch Jagdalpur, dist. Bastar C.G.

¶12

Present: Smt. Renu Kochar,^{counselfortheappellant.}

¶13

None for respondent^{No.1thoughserved}

¶14

Shri Raj Awasthi,^{counselforrespondentNo.2.}

¶15

ORDER (20th^June,2012)

¶16

i i The following order“ of the Court was passed by Raj‘jeev Gupta,^C.J. This, is claimant’s appeal for enhancement of the corhpensation^{awardedbytheMotorAccidentClaimsTribunal,} i x . f

¶17

v»

¶18

2 M.A. No. 789 of 2004

A(”

f?”I

‘the Bastar at Jagdalpur (for^short Tribunal’) vide award dated 07.05.2004, passed in Claim Case No.191/2003. 2) As against the compensation 0f Rs.10,17,000/- claimed by the {appellant/claimant, unfortunate daughter of deceased Mangni Bai; by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 07.04.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.60,600/— as compensation V^- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of tiling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. a

¶23

The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Mangni Bai died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accidentxon 07.04.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 Dhan Singh, husband of deceased Mangni Bai and father of claimant Neelavati who was driving offending vehicle Moped bearing registration No.C.G.17/ZE-5087; though the above offending vehicle Moped, on the date^{oftheaccident,wasinsured} with the National insurance Company Limited^asthesamewas being used in breach of the policy conditions, the insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation to the^claimantand the liability in that behalf^{wasthatoftheowneroftheMoped.} 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.600/— per month. By'aeducting 1/3rd or Rs.600/- towards the personal^{expensesofthedeceased,theclaimants’dependency} was assessed at Rs.400/— per month^{andRs.4,800/—} per^annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.4,800/— with the \

M.A. No.⁷⁸⁹ of 2004

multiplier^{of12,thecompensationwasworkedouttoRs.57,600l—.} By iawarding further sum of Rs.3,000l—^{underotherheads,} the Trihunal^{awardedatotalsumofRs.60,600/—ascompensationto} i thetolaimant^{forthedeathofhermotherMangniBaiinthemotor} acdident. The Tribunal^{furtherdirectedpaymentofinterestof} Rsi60,600/— @^9% per^{annumfromthedateoffilingoftheclaim} petition^{tillthedateofactualpayment.} 5)? “aSmt. Renu Kochar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted^{thattheTribunalhaserredinexoneratingtheinsurerof} the Moped^from its liability^to pay^{compensationtotheclaimant;} in assessing^{theincomeofthedeceasedatRs.600/—permonth} only; and^{inawardinglowcompensationofRs;60,600/—only.} 6) Shri Raj^{Awasthi,learnedcounselforrespondentNo.2,the} National^{InsuranceCompanyLimited,theinsureroftheMoped,} on the^{otherhand,supportedtheawardandcontendedthatthe} Tribunal^{hasrightlyexoneratedtheinsureroftheMopedfromits} to the claimant^asthe Insurance liability to pay^compensation ‘Liability Only Policy’ and did not Policy^{coveringtheMopedwas} cover^theriskofthe pillion—rider. 7) So far^{asthefindingrecordedbytheTribunalleadingtothe} exoneration of the insurer of the Moped is concerned, it is apparent^{thatdeceasedMangni} Bai at the^{timeoftheaccident} was travelling^{ontheMopedasapillion-riderandtheMopedwas} being^{drivenbyherhusbandrespondentNo.1} Dhan Singh,^who The Insurance^Policyofthe is also^{fatherofclaimantNeelavati.} ‘Liability Only Policy’. Moped (Ex.D/1)^{clearlyindicatesthatitisa} 7/ g \

¶28

¶29

M .A. No. 789 of 2004

¶30

¶31

The owner of the Moped has paid extra premium of Rs.50/— for covering the risk of the owner^— driver only. No extra premium was paid by the owner for covering the risk of the pillion rider. As, no other vehicle was involved in the accident and the owner .of the Moped did not pay any extra premium to the Insurance Company for covering the risk of the pillion rider i.e. deceased Mangni Bai the Insurance Company, in our opinion is not liabie to ‘p‘éy‘ compensation to the claimant and the Iiability in that behalf would be only of the owner of the Moped as has been held by the Tribunal though on a different ground that at the time of the accident three persons were travelling on the Moped which amounts to breach of the policy conditions. xWe, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the above finding leading to exoneration of the insurer of the Moped. 8) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.60,600/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9) True, the claimant pleaded that her mother Mangni Bai used to earn Rs.100/— per day as labour and the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.600/per^month only. 10) Considering that deceased Mangni Bai was aged about 48 years^{onthedateoftheaccident,we} are of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to have assessed her income at Rs.2,000/— per month and Rs.24,000/per^annum.We, therefore, propose to

M.A. No. 789 of 2004

recompute the compensation taking the income of the deceased ét Rs.2,000/— per month and Rs.24,000/— per annum.

¶37

a 11) Considering that the sole claimant in the case Neeiavati Was dependent on the income of the deceased, we deem it to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards his proper i expenses. The claimant’s dependency, therefore, is personai assessed at Rs.12,000l— per annum. ‘ 12‘) Considering the age of the deceased and the claimant, the multiplier of 12 selected by the Tribunal, in our opinion, is . appropriate. 13) By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.12,000/— with the multiplier of 12 the compensation worksput to Rs.1,44,000/-. The claimant is further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/— for~loss of estate. The claimant, thus, becomes entitled to receive a totalsum of Rs.1,54,000l— as compensation for the death of deceased Mangni Bai in the motor accident.

¶38

The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @^6% per^{annumfromthedateoffilingoftheclaim} petition till the date of actual payment.

¶39

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal med by the a’ppellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. Whilemaftirming the finding recorded by the Tribunal leading to the exoneration of the insurer of the Moped and holding the owner of the Moped liable to pay compensation to the claimant, the amount of compensation of Rs.60,600/— a l.- we“

M.A. N0. 789 of 2004

awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,54,000/—. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry Interest @ 6% per annum from the date of flllng of the claim petmon tlll the date of

¶44

actual^payment.

¶45

1:6) No order as to costs.

¶46

NL’; Sdl- s
Chief Justicef

¶47

W sd/Sunil^KumarSinhai Judge

Neela Vati v. Dhan Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neela Vati v. Dhan 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

Ajit Singh Rajpal Vs Vijay Kumar and Others

Smt.Lagni Bai and Others Vs Baisakhuram and Others

Chamarin Bai Vs State

Gobaru @ Gobardhan and Ors. Vs State

Shambhoo Singh and Ors. Vs State

Basdev and Others Vs Mallu Singh and Others