In an appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs. 3,72,200 for death compensation, the Bench held there was no merit in the grievance and the compensation was reasonable. The appeal was dismissed with a direction to deposit the amount.
Appellant directed to deposit the award amount including interest within one month; appeal rejected.
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.
IN THE HIGHCOURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR
Miscellaneous Appeal (C.) ....../..°..&......... 2012
APPELLANT
l^ ^-•^y. ^•^^'..^^•Bt1>n"'A7t|_y^—""
Lj»0>"'~
L, S/o- Pyeu-elal Satnami aged 60 years, OccupationAgriculture, R/oPratappur, P/sPandatarai, TahPandaria, Distkabirdham
1.^'*''
(C.G.) Owner ofVehicle.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS
l^ Sumitrabai, Wd/o- late Shri ram Satnaini, aged 38 years.
^-t.
All are R/o- Dholkanpa, Post - Bhareva, Occu-agriculture and labour, P/s-Kunda, ' TahPandaria, Dist.Kabirdham (C.G.)
S.^Satrupa S/o- Sanjay Satncuni, aged 19 years, R/o- Khairwar, P/sKunda, TahPandaria, Dist- Kabirdham (C.G.)
MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF TH^BIOTQR
VEHICLE ACT 1988
liiri'n.Uu.j.ituB.iu.B.niiuiiis
HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR
M. A. (C) No. 486 of 20 12
Appellant Ramji
Versus Respondents Sumitrabai 6s others
MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 1730FTHE MOTQR VEHICLES ACT, 1973
DB: Hon'ble Mr. Abhay Manohar Sapre & Hon'ble Mr. G. Minhajuddin, JJ
Shri Akhtar Hussain, Advocate for the appellant.
ORDERfOraS
( Passed on this 10U1 day ofJuly, 2012
Per Abhay Manohar Sapre J.
J" • • -
This appeal has been filed by the owner of the vehicle under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned award dated 11th January, 2012, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham (Kawardha) in Claim Case No.66/2009.
By the impugned award leamed .Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the respondents No. 1 to 5/Claimants under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 and awarded a total sum ofRs. 3,72,200/- for the death ofone Shri Ram.
The short question that arises for our consideration is wjtether learned Tribunsd was justified in allowing the claim petition under Section 166 of theAct, 1988 and was justified in awarding a total sum of Rs. 3,72,200/- for the death of Shri Ram towards co'mpensation to the claimants/dependents.
-4.
, Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the papers available on record we find absolutely no mgrit-in this appeal. In our opinion learned Tribunal was perfectly justified in:'awarding a tptal sum of Rs. 3,72,200/- to the
&^
'^
claimants/dependents for the death of Shri Ram and thus, in our opiriion, the just and reasonable coinpensation has been awarded within the meaning of SeGtion 166 of the Act, 1988.
It is not in dispute that Shri Ram was aged about 35 years and was working as Labour. Learned Tribunal was therefore justiBed in taking Rs. 21.00/- as his nionthly incoine and after dedycting l/4th towards his personal and living expenses has ascertained the monthly dependency as Rs. 1600/- and applylng the raultiplier of 16, has awarded Rs. 3,07,200/- towards loss of dependency. Learned Tribunal was also justified in awarding Rs. 20,000/for loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/for loss of consortium, Rs. 25,000/for loss of love and affection (Rs.5000/-each)andRs.5000/-forfuneralexpensesi.e.total Rs. 65,000/- under conventional heffds.
^ We therefore find absolutely no good ground to hold that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is either excessive or a lionanza to the clairnants/dependQnts.
It js unfortunate that the appellant who is owner of the offending, vehicle did not get the vehicle insured under fhe prQvisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, although it is compulsory for him. In the absence of that the claimants are not in a position to recover the claiai from the insurance corapany.In this view of the matter, we direct the appellant/owner to deposit the amount of award, including the interest accn.ied on the total suin, within a period of one rnonth from today, failing which necessary steps, as permissible under the law, shall be taken against the appellant/owner by selling of the vehicle or any other property of the appellant to recover the sum and satisfy the award.
,In view of what has been stated herein above, the appeal is dismissed. i f
Sd/G. Minhajuddin Judge
Sd/-
Abhay Manohar Sapre Judge
ThakuT-,,
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was justified in awarding Rs. 3,72,200/- for death compensation under Section 166 of the Act.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramji
Sumitrabai & others
Abhay Manohar Sapre
G. Minhajuddin
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
