This is a miscellaneous appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded in a motor accident death case. The High Court dismissed the appeal holding the Tribunal's award of Rs.67,500/- to be just and proper, noting the claimant's lack of dependence.
The appeal for enhancement of compensation was dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH
\ CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J.
Misc. Appeal No. 86 of 2006
APPELLANT Ravishankar Sahu, aged CLAIMANT about 23 years, S/o Iate Ramadhar Sahu, R/o Dhansir, PS Bilaigarh, District Raipur (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Janak Ram, s/o Patiram Pande, aged 40 years, R/o Arikel Dipa, PS Basna, Distt Mahasamund (CG) 2. Mohd Mozzmeel Ahmed, S/o Hazivir Mohammad, R/o Bargarh, Distt Bargarh, Orissa United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Oriental Complex, Gosla Road Bargarh (Orissa) Bharat Lai, S/o Late Ramadhar Sahu, aged 20 years, R/o Dhansir, PS' &Tahsil Bilaigarh, District
MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988
Present: Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for the appellant. Smt. Meena Shastri, counsel for respondent No.1. v
None for respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 though served.
2 Misc. Appeal No. 86 of 2006
ORDER
(12mJune,2012)
The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.
This is claimant’s appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baioda Bazar (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 25.10.2005, passedinClaim Case No.160/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.4,11,000/- claimed by the appeilant/ claimant, unfortunate grandson of deceased Nanhuram Sahu, by filing a claim petitionunderSection 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor accident on 22.09.2004; the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.67,500/— as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal considering that deceased Nanhuram Sahu was aged about 75 years on the date of the accident; the claimant could not establish that the deceased was having any independent income; the fact that the sole claimant in the case Ravishankar Sahu was aged about 23 yearsyassessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act; by deducting 1/3rd ofc Rs.15,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimant‘s dependency Was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum; by multiplying the gmual dependency of Rs.10,000/¥ .withthe
3
Misc. Appeal No. 86 of 2006
éé
multiplier of 5, the compensation was worked out to Rs.50,000/—; by awarding further sum of Rs.17,500/— under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.67,500/— as compensation to \ the claimant for the death of deceased Nanhuram Sahu in the motor accident.
this appeaL K/ K
4 Misc. Aalppe No. 86 of 2006
a ?
SdlChief Jusu'ce Jildge
*\
J? Sdi— _ i Sunil Kumar Slnha
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation award of Rs.67,500/- by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal calls for enhancement.
Whether the claimant was dependent on the deceased given his age of 23 years.
Whether the Tribunal applied the correct methodology for calculating notional income and multiplier.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt Manjuri Bera Vs Oriental Insurance Company LimitedReferred¶21
2007 AIR SCW 1962 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Ravishankar Sahu
Janak Ram
Rajeev Gupta
Sunil Kumar Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
