Dismissed

Gayatri Bai and Ors. v. Damarudhar Sao and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC19 Jun 2012MAC/157/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench condoned the delay in filing a memorial under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court dismissed the appellants appeal seeking enhancement of compensation as the Tribunal's assessment of income, dependency, and selected multiplier found legally sustainable based on the evidence on record.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing appeal condoned; Appeal for enhancement of compensation dismissed as failed.

Gayatri Bai and Ors. Vs Damarudhar Sao and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

(2o

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARJl^AT BILASPUR

¶3

DIVISIONBENCH

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLESHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J.

¶5

Misc. Appeal (0 No. 157 of2012

¶6

Appellants Claimants	1.	Gayatri Bai Wd/o Gorelal Chandra aged about 26 ye^rs,
	2.	Ku. Nisha d/o late Gorelal Chandra aged aTOiut 05 years, through legal guardian mother Gayatri Bai wd/o Gorelal Chandra
	3.	s/o late Gorelal about 3 % years, Nitesh Kumar Chandra, aged minor through legal guardian mother Gayatri Bai wd/o Gorelal Chandra
	4.	Ghasi Ram s/o Saheb Lal Chandra, aged about 52 years,
	5.	Jalbai w/o Ghasiram Chandra, aged about49 years, All are resident of village Parsapali (Podishanker) distt. Janjgir Champa C.G. Present address Karigaon, P.S. & Tah. Malkharoda, distt. Janjgir- Champa C.G. VERSUS
Respondents	1.	Damrudhar Sao s/o Ramchandra aged about 30 years, r/o village Panipathar, P.S. & Tahsil Kharsia district Raigarh C.G.
	2.	M/s Balaji Trading Company Partner Girdhar Gupta, s/o late Dindayal Gupta, r/o P.0. Road Kharsia, district Raigarh C.G.
	3.	The New India Insurance Company Raigarh, Tah. & Distt. Raigarh C.G.

/9 ^:isC«%aa-*

MAC.No. 157 of 2012

^^-^

Memo of appeal under Section 173 of IVIotor Vehicle Act

¶11

Present: Shri Basant Kaiwartya, counsel for the appellants. Shri Pankaj Agrawal and Smt. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for respondent No.3.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The following order of the tfourt was passed by '~> Rajeev Gupta, C.J.

¶14

Learned counsel for the parties are heard on I.A.No.01/2012, an application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal.

¶15

On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties 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.

¶16

I.A.No.01/2012, therefore, isallowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

¶17

Shri Basant Kaiwartya, learnedcounsel for the appetlants is heard on admission.

¶18

The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, district Janjgir-Champa (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 03.08.2011, passed in Claim Case No.42/2010.

¶19

As against the compensation of Rs.86,75,000/-^claimedby the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate widow,^{minorchildrenand} parents of deceased Gorelat Chandra by filing a claim petition

¶20

'^ £! ••^•-•^•^^£? sy

¶21

MAC.No. 157 of 2012

¶22

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, forhis death in the motor accident on 22.05.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,76,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till date of actual payment.

¶23

The Tribunal on a close scrutinyof the entire evidence ted before it held that deceased Qi^elal Chandra died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 22.05.2009; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Dumper bearing registration NO.C.G.13-ZC/0455; as the above offending vehicle Dumper, on the date of the accident, was insured with the New tndia Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 8) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, and Rs.36,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/4 of Rs.36,000/towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.27,000/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.27,000/- with the multiplier of 17, the compensation was worked out to Rs.4,59,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.17,500/- under other heads, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,76,500/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Gorelal Chandra in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of

K--

"A.gsm

M.A.C.NO. 157 of 2012

¶28

R K

¶29

compensation of Rs.4,76,500/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

¶30

Shri Basant Kaiwartya, 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; and in awardiny low compensation of Rs.4,76,500/- only. ^-

¶31

True, the claimants pleaded that deceased Gorelal Chandra used to earn Rs. 15,0007- per month by running a Kirana Shop,no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing that the deceased was running any shop at all. For the reasons best known to the claimants, no registration/ license of the alleged shop of the deceased was produced before the Tribunal. In this state of evidence, 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.

¶32

The claimants' dependency also has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal by deducting only 1/4 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses.

¶33

The multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunal considering that deceased Gorelal Chandra was aged about 30 years on the date of the accident, is perfectly inline with 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

•^

lml%1!";1^;,.^.

M.A.C.No.157of2012

'.t;^

SCC 121 wherein multiplier of 17 has been prescribed for the age group between 26-30 years.

¶40

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. <-'

¶41

The appeal filed by tte^appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be

¶42

dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily.

¶43

Sd/Chief Justiee

¶44

\B Sd/R.N. Chandrakar Judge

¶45

subbu

¶46

Gayatri Bai and Ors. v. Damarudhar Sao and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gayatri Bai and Ors. v. Damarudhar Sao 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

Smt. Gouri Verma and Ors. Vs Fareed Khan and Ors.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mukhtiyar Singh and Others

Shambhu Rao Vs Mohd.Tahir Khan @ Raju and Others

Nandu Devi and Others Vs Dinesh Patkar and Others

Asha Chouhan and Others Vs Viresh Kumar and Others

Subho Bai Vs Smt. Aasha Devi and Ors.