Partly allowed

Bajaj Allianz General Insu.Co. v. Sukhchand Patle and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC7 Feb 2012MAC/1125/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs.48,72,932/- and substituted it with Rs.3,50,000/- deposited in a fixed deposit account for five years, based on the statutory Second Schedule.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award set aside and substituted with Rs.3,50,000/- payable in a fixed deposit for five years in the joint name of claimants.

Bajaj Allianz General Insu.Co. Vs Sukhchand Patle… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THB HON'BLE HIGH COURT QF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

Misc. Appeal {C} N0. fj Z-t^ /2011

¶4

^Bajaj APPELLANT Allianz General Insurance ^ Company Limited, Through Manager, Bajaja Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Pandri, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.) (INSURER)

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

RESPONDENTS Sukhchand Patle @ Lala Patle, S/o
Shri Babulal Patle, aged about 41
.) years,
y t^^
Smt. Kamla Patle, W/o Sukhchand
^^^ Patle, aged about 39 years,
Both are resident of Furchur Bazar
^^y" Chowk, Near Paai Tanki, Thana
^^ Furchur, . Tehsil and District
Gondiya, Maharastra (Claimants)
3). Gyaneshwar Katre @ Pappu, S/o
Rekhchand Katre, resident of
^ Kamargaon, Thana Goregaon,
District Gondiya, Maharastra
(Driverl
Komal Agrawal, S/o Kishore Lal
y
Agrawal, resident of Village Chopa,
Tehsil and Thana Goregaon, District
Gondiya, Maharastra (Ownert
<^^-"
MEMORANDUM OF APPEALJJNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT 1988 AS AMENDED BY ACT OF 1994

¶7

¶8

3;0

¶9

HIGH CGURT OF CHHAmSBGASm AT BILASPUR

¶10

MESC. APPBAL |C| N0. 11^5 of 201.1

¶11

APPBLLABET

¶12

Bajaj Atliari^ General. Insurai3.ee Conipaay Limited*

¶13

Ve^sias

¶14

RBSPONDBNTS Si.ikhc5iaAi€l Patel alias Lala Patel and othcrs,

¶15

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OFTHE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1 Q88 AS AMRNDRD BY ACT QF 1994

¶16

DB: Hosa?ble Df. Jixsfclee l.M. Qiaddiiai & Hoa'ble Shri Justice G. Minhajiaddin.

¶17

Presesit 2 SliriS.S. Rajpiit, couiisel for tlle appellaiit Shri Surcsh Taiidon, counsel for rcspondents No.l&2.

¶18

None for respoxxlents No. 3 & 4 tho'agli served,

¶19

ORAL GRDER

¶20

fps^sed oa ?th daj ofFeforuary, 20121

¶21

Per_Df.,LM.QiAddiiM^»I.

¶22

TMs appeal has been filed by tlie appellaat/Bajaj .AIliaATz Geiie.ral Insuraiice CoiHpany agaiiist tlie iiiipiigned award dated 13-01-2011, passed by tlie Chief Motor Accident Claims Tril3unal, Raipur (for short the Claiiiis Tribunar) 111 Claim Case No. 80/2009.

¶23

Brief facts of flie case, as per versioii of the claLuiaiits are tiiat tiie deceased Vljay was workiiig as Conductor. Oo. 02-042009 at 9-15 a.ni., he was goliig from. Gondia to Tilda on the Truck bearmg registration No, C.G, 07-C/6440 for loaelmg rlce fi.om fhe rice mlll. At rice mlil, whlle he was sliowiiig flie way to tlie track driver, he was dashed by fhe truck wliicli was beiag driven by rAon'-applicaiit No,l, in a rash aiid negllgent ijaaiiner, as a result of which Vijay sustam.ed grievous iDjiiries aud succaiubed to fhe injuries. The report of tiie AAicideat was lodged iii fhe Police &tation, Nev-ra agaiast noa-apptlcarit No.l/driver, At tlie tmie of tlie accideiit, tlie deceased was 22 years and was earniiig Rs.3000/- per jXiontli.

¶24

¶25

The claisiiants beiag legal heirs of the deceased had filed a petitiou before tlie Clalois Tribuiial tinder Sectioa 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'tlie Act3) clalmiag a total couapeiisatlon ofRs.3,95,000/-- for the deatli ofthe deceased.

¶26

The learned Claiiiis Tribuiial 011 a close scrutiay of tiie evidence led, material placed aad submissions jxiade by flie paities has awarded a total sum of Rs. 4^87^932/- along with uiterest @ 6% per aiirAuni,

¶27

We have heard leariied counsel for tlie parties, perased tlie iiiipugued award aiid tlie record of flie Tribunal.

¶28

Leai'ixed counsel for the appellant submitted tliat 50% should liave been deducted towajds persoaal aiid liviiig expenses of tlie deceased as iie was bachelor aiid tiie average age of the pai'eiits sliould have been taken for the purpose of applymg laultlplier, biit u~i our opiiiion tiiese nornis have been fixed ia tiie case of SarEa VcrnwL (Smtj wv3i ethers VB. Bclhi Tresnsp^ft Corporatlon and Another, reported iri (2009) 6 SCC 121, where tiiere are no statutoiy provisions, Bieaiiuig fliereby, Uiat for purpose of claim petltion filed under Section 166 of fhe Act, 1988. For fhe piupose of calculation under Section 163-A, tlie Schedule has been given iii tbie Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 wliich is statutoiy provision aiid tiiis Court caruiot cliaiige fhe statutoiy provisioii applyio.g its own forraula or HOIDIS. Therefore, Uie Court is bound to follow tiie schedule given for Uie purpose of assessiiig flie loss of depenidency aDxl tlie conipensatiorjL, Tlra^ we have to consider tlie Impugned awarcl hi fhe llght of the Second Sc;hediile.

¶29

The age of fbie deceased was 21 yeai'8, he was earning Rs,3000/-- per iiionth. Learned Clalms Tribuiial concerned^ has suo-Bioto enhaiiced tlie nioAifhly income of tlie deceased to Rs.3500/- per nionfli, which was not proper. The actual aijaount whlch was beuig received by fhe deceased as iiiconie sliould have been taken iiito aecount, Thejrefore, we calculate fhe same accordiug to SecoDd Schedule. Takiog mto consideration flie niontlily iacome oftiie deceased as Rs.3000/- per nioiifli aad tiie an.uuai iucoiaae would come to Rs,36000/-. After deductuig l/3rd

:.d^" •^^^

3^-

towards personal aiid liviiig expenses, accordiag to second schedule, tiie loss of depeAidency would coine to Rs.24,000/-» After applying tlie multiplier of 17, as provided iu flie second schediile titie totel auoLOunt towards loss of dependency would coiae to Rs.4,08,000/-. Besides this, fSie claiaiaats ai'e entitled to get Rs.2000/- for faneral expenses aiid Rs. 2,500/- for loss of estate. Thus, after addmg fhis amoiuit Le. Rs.4,500/-, tlie totel compensatlon coiues to Rs.4,12,500/-. The claimants woidcl be eiititled to get a sisiiple ioterest of 6% per aizoiioi froBi the date of filing the claim petitlon tUl the paymeiit of cojuipensation is made. However, Rs.3,50,000/- shaU be deposited la a fbced deposit ia aiiy nationalLsed baiik for a pexiod of flve yeai's iu tiie joiiit name of fhe claimaiits. The ajuiiouut which lias already been paid to tlie claiaiaAxte shaU be deducted whlle making paynient of coiapensatiou to tiie clauxiarits.

¶35

IAI view of tlie above, the appeal 1s allowed in part. The impugned award is isaodlfied to the above extent.

¶36

No order as to costs.

¶37

Sd/Dr. I.M. Quddusi Judge

¶38

Sd/-
G. Minhajuddin
Judge

¶39

Kvr

Bajaj Allianz General Insu.Co. v. Sukhchand Patle and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajaj Allianz General Insu.Co. v. Sukhchand Patle 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

Salik Ram and Others Vs Mahan Singh and Others

Smt.Fudni Bai and Others Vs Anil Kumar Gupta and Others

Mohan Lal Sahu and 0RS Vs Saubhagyavati Bai and Ors.

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co.Lt. Vs Chandrika and Another

Vipin Punjabi Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Smt Samarin Bai and Another Vs Abdul Jahir and Anothr