Allowed

Smt. Savita Bai and Ors. v. Ghasiya Ram and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC7 Feb 2012MAC/209/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This miscellaneous appeal concerned the enhancement of compensation awarded for a motor accident death. The High Court found the Tribunal erred in applying a multiplier of 12 instead of 16 for the deceased's age. The compensation was enhanced from Rs. 2,92,000 to Rs. 3,99,000.

What did the court decide?

The award of compensation was enhanced from Rs. 2,92,000 to Rs. 3,99,000 with interest.

Smt. Savita Bai and Ors. Vs Ghasiya Ram and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

(C.G.)

¶4

MISC. APPEAL (C) N0.\anc1 QF201l8111^

¶5

APPELLANTS

¶6

Smt. Savita. Bai, W/o Devdhar Gond, aged about 28 years,

¶7

¶8

^. 3.
-^
6
/^"
^///'ar
4.
/w

¶9

Ku. Rany, D/o Late Devdhar Gond, aged about 03 years, *<^. Sonu Ram, S/o Devdhar Gond, aged about 1 years,

¶10

Smt. Bisahin Bai, W/o Mehattar Gond, aged about 52 years,

¶11

Appellant no. 2 & 3 are minor through their natural guardian mother Smt. Savita Bai, W/o Devdhar Gond, All are Resident of Village Saraitola, Post Office Gattasilli, Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

RESPONDENTS :

¶14

Ghasiya Ram, S/o Mahanguram Markam, aged about 50 years, R/o Village Saraitola, Post Office Gattasilli, Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶15

¶16

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through: the Branch Manager, Branch Office, Near Aadarsh VidyaMandir, Behind Amar Talkies, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶17

¶18

Claimed before Tribunal : Rs. 8,25,000/Amount awarded by the learned Tribunal : Rs, 2,92,000/-

¶19

Claimed in this Memo ofAppeal : Rs. 2,60,000/-

¶20

The appellants have re-assessed the claim value in the instant appeal on the basis ofthe evidence and th'e material available on

¶21

the record as well as his income.

¶22

MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988

¶23

<lp

¶24

¶25

HIGHCOURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶26

S,A> ,«;mo.^fla.OE2fl.3,1

¶27

Smt. Savifa Itei and others

¶28

RfcSFONOfcNTS unasiya Kam ana anotner

¶29

ISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 W THE MOTOR VEHIC1.E ACT. 1988

¶30

(SB: Hon'bte Mr. N.K. Aaaiwal. J.)

¶31

Present Mr. P.P. Sahu, counsel forthe aDpellante. Mr. Ratan Pusty, counsel for respondent No.2.

¶32

^IIM^^Ut^)

¶33

This is claimants' aop^it sedano enhancement of compensation awarded by the Chief Motor Accident Glaims Tribunat, Dhamtari (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 193/2008, vide award dated 1 1.05.2010.

¶34

As against compensation of Rs. 8,25;000/ciaimed by unfortunate widow, two minor ©hildrenand mother of dsceased Devdhar Gond bv fitinq ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Tor short the Act') for his death in the motoraccident on 24.06.2008, the Tribunal awarded a tatai sum of Rs. 2,92,000/- to the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition tlll its actual 3. The Trit on a closeserutiny of the evldence ied, aGcident occurred due to rash and negligent ingi of vehtele traetor bearinq reqistration CGby its driver Manoj Kumar (deceased);

B»S

Gond died on account of injuries sustained by accident; respondent 2/The Orfental fnsurance Limited iiabie for of compensation establish the violation poiicy conditions; awarded aforesald sum as compensation in favour of the claimants.

Shri P.P. Sahu, iearned counsei appearing for ttie appeltants would submit: the cleceased was aged about 32 years at the time of accident and the ofaimants are widow, nmnor children erred In selecting the multiplier of 12 only and thereby in awarding low amount of compensation of Rs.2,92,000/- ohly.

¶44

On the other hand, Shri Ratan Pusty, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 21 The Orientai tnsurance Company Limited, supported the award impugned submitted, in the facts and cireumstances ®fthe case, compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation and does not cali for anv interference.

¶45

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parti^ and perused the material available on record inctudfng award

¶46

The facts that the deceased died on axsount of ir^uri^ sustalned by him in the motor accident on 24.6.2008and the Insurance Company coutd not establish the violation of pdicy conditions are now not in dispute.

The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month; deducted 1/3 of it towards his pereorml expenses and assessed the claimante' annual dependency as Rs. 24;000/-. Loolgng to the age of the deceased as 32 years at the tlme of accident, the Tribunat applled multlptisr of 12 and assessed amount of compensation of Rs. Rs.2,68,000/- on account of lo^ of dependency. The Tribunal further awarded Rs.4,000/- on other heads and thus awarded a total sum of Rs.2,92,000/- as compensation to ttie clalmants.

¶52

The Supreme Court in case of Sarto Venna (Smit.l and others

¶53

(2009) 6 SCC 121 has prescribed the multipiier of 16 fer the age group between 31 to 35 years. Therefore, the Trtounal certainiy erred in computing amount of compensatton t»y applying the multlplier of 12 only. Therefore, l propose to recompute the amount of compensation by taking consideration the multipller of 16 in place of 12.r

¶54

¶55

¶56

By multiplylng the claimants' annual dependency of Rs.24,( with the muttiplier of 16, the compensation on account of loss of dependency to the claimants works out to Rs.3,84,000/-. The claimants/appetlants are further enfitied for Rs. 15,000/- on other heads (Rs. 5000/ - each on account of funa'al expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate), and thus the claimants are entltied for a total sum of Rs. 3;99,000/- as compensation instead of Rs. 2,92,000/- as awarded bv the Tribunal.

¶57

¶58

Wf
•i.'!r (^a';;,':;....,»,T;^
^
'it...
J"Jf"
"s%.^l"y
v*wsf3-ef"

¶59

¶60

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fited by the appellants enhancement of compensation is allcwed in part.

¶61

compensation of Rs. 2,92,000/- awarded by the Tribuna! enhanced to Rs. 3,99,OOCV-. The appellants/claimante further entitled to receive Rs.1,07,000/-/- over and above amount awarded by the Tribunal. Enhanced amount ,07,000/- shall carrv interest

¶62

date of filing of ctaim petition tttl ite actuat payment. Award is modified to theabove extent. Rest of the conditions mentioned tn the award stiall rem'ain intact.

¶63

The respondent No. 3/0riental Insurance Company Llmfted is granted three months time to deposit enhanced of compensation of Rs. 1,07,000/- aiong with interest annum Trom the date of Wing of claim petition concernina Clalms Tribunal.

¶64

No order as to costs.

¶65

sdj:.^^ ^s"'

Smt. Savita Bai and Ors. v. Ghasiya Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Savita Bai and Ors. v. Ghasiya Ram 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

Rajesh Kumar and Others Vs Rajendra Singh and Others

Bajaj Allianz Genral Insu.Co.Lt. Vs Laxman Das Deshlehara and Others

Balbeer Das Manikpuri Vs Bhuwan Lal and Others

Makdu Korwa and Ors. Vs Latha and Ors.

Bhavsagar @ Budu and Another Vs Nohar Say Dead and Others

Vinod Kumar Vs Dameshwar and Ors.