Dismissed

Smt. Sangeeta Dewangan And Others v. Digvijay Chaudhary And Others

Chhattisgarh HC6 Feb 2012MAC/1251/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for a motor accident. The Court upheld the Tribunal's assessment of the deceased's income and the multiplier used, finding no scope for enhancement.

What did the court decide?

The appeal for enhancement of compensation is dismissed summarily.

Smt. Sangeeta Dewangan And Others Vs Digvijay… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶2

DIVISION BENCH

¶3

CORAM: HON' HON' Mis	BLE SH BLE SH c. App	RI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. RI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J eal (C) No. 1251 of 2011
Appellants Claimants	1	Smt. Sangeeta Dewangan, Wd/o. Late Ramesh Dewangan, aged about 25 years.
	2	Ku. Bhumika, d/o. late Ramesh Dewangan, aged about 04 years.
	3	Ku. Payal, d/o. Late Ramesh Dewangan,aged about 02 years.
	4	Chait Ram Dewangan, s/o. Dukalu Dewangan, ag'ed about 50 years.
	5	Smt. Aasin Bai, w/o. Chait Ram Dewangan, aged about45 years.
		Appellants No. 2 to 3 being minors represented by their natural guardian & mother appellant No.1 Smt. Sangeeta Dewangan, wd/o. Late Ramesh Dewangan.
		All r/o. behind Ashwani Nagar, Chandrashekhar Nagar, Thana Purani Basti, District Raipur, C.G. VERSUS
Respondents Non-applicants	1	Digvijay Chaudhary, s/o. Chakradhar Chaudhary, r/o. E/W/S/ 1409 M.P.H.B. Colony, Bhilai, District Durg (CG).
		(Driver & Owner of vehicle Truck bearing registration No. CG 07/C/5398).
	2	Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, through Incharge Officer, Shop No. 412, 413 Fourth FIoor Ravi Bhawan, Jaistambh Chowk Raipur, District Raipur (CG).

¶4

M.A.C.No. 1251 of 2011

¶5

Miscellaneous Appeal under Section J 73 of

¶6

the MotorVehicles Act

¶7

Present : Shri Suresh Tandon, counsel for the appellants.

¶8

ORDER

¶9

?th (06InFebruary,2012)

¶10

The following order of the Court was passed by

¶11

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.

¶12

Shri Suresh Tandon, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on I.A.No.01/2011, an application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal.

¶13

On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal.

¶14

^,...

¶15

I.A. No.01/2011, therefore,.is allowed and the delay in filing theappeal is hereby condoned.

¶16

Shri Suresh Tandon, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission.

¶17

The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by 4 Additional Motor Accident Claims 'the Tribunal, Raipur (for short Tribunal') vide award dated 29.04.2011, passed in Claim Case No.77/2011 .

¶18

As against the compensation of Rs. 13,56,0007- claimed by the appetlants/claimants, unfortunate widow, minor children and

¶19

M.A.C.No. 1251 of 2011

¶20

¶21

parents^{ofdeceasedRameshDewanganbyfilingaclaim} petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 28.10.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,62,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

¶22

^IIIIINIII^

¶23

Shri Suresh Tandon, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his income at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum only; in deducting 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.4,62,000/- only.

¶24

True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Ramesh Dewangan used to'earn Rs.8,000/- per month as Carpenter, the evidence led in that behalf was not of clinching nature. The salary certificate Ex.P/11 prodcued by the claimants before the Tribunal was issued by claimant No.4 Chait Ram Dewangan, father of deceased Ramesh Dewangan. The Tribunal has given cogent reasons for discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased.

¶25

On due consideration, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum.

¶26

As claimant No.4 Chaitram Dewangan, admittedly, was having his own independent income of more than Rs.1,00,000/- per

¶27

:!I

¶28

M.A.C. No. 1251 of 2011

¶29

¶30

annum, the deduction of 1/3 ofthe income ofthe deceased by the Tribunal towards his personal expenses cannot be found fault with. 11) The multiplier of 18 selected by the Tribunal is rather on the higher side in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, which prescribes multiplier of 17 for the age group between 26 - 30 years and deceased Ramesh Dewangan was shown to be 29 years of age in his post mortem report.

¶31

The Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding substantial amount of Rs.30,000/- under other heads.

¶32

'('

¶33

For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income of the deceased, or the claimants' dependency by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected.

¶34

The appeal filed by the appellants / claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily.

¶35

Sd/Sd/R.N. Chandrakar Chief Justice Judge

¶36

subbu

Smt. Sangeeta Dewangan And Others v. Digvijay Chaudhary And Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sangeeta Dewangan And Others v. Digvijay Chaudhary And Others

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

Ichha Ram Sahu Vs Suresh Kumar Sahu and Others

Shanti Lal Dave Vs Jagdish Bhai and Anr.

Chaitram Vs Janak Ram Dahriya

Smt. Reshma Begum and Ors. Vs Mo. Anwar and Ors.

Smt. Aasin Bai and Anr. Vs Santosh Kumar Sahu and Ors.

Rewaram Sahu and Another Vs Domendra Chunarkar and Others