Dismissed

Smt. Umathi Bai and Anr. v. Vinod Patankar and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC6 Aug 2012MAC/499/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed an appeal by the wife and son of a deceased victim seeking enhancement of motor accident compensation. The court upheld the lower tribunal's assessment of income and dependency, finding the awarded compensation reasonable based on the available evidence and Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the appellants for enhancement of compensation is dismissed; no enhancement granted.

Smt. Umathi Bai and Anr. Vs Vinod Patankar and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

\ ^

¶2

Umathi Bai W/o Late Gajanad Dillewar aged about 60 years,

¶3

Goverdhan S/o Late Gajanad Dillewar aged about 47 years, ioth resident of village

¶4

Chandana, P.S. Magarlod, District - Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶5

Vinod Patankar S/o Anand Patankar aged about 23 years C.S.E.B. Colony, Sub Station Road 33//11, Para Gaon, P.S. - Gobra, Nawapara, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶6

A.K.Patankar S//0 Jogi Ji Patankar R/o Viliage C.S.E.B. Colony, Sub Station Road 33//11, Para Gaon, P.S. Gobra, Nawapara, District

¶7

Raipur(C.G.)

¶8

The New India Insurance Branch Office 2"°>nd Floor, R.D.A. Building, Raipur, Distt - Raipur (C.G.) . U.^3.

¶9

(2) M.A.(C)No. 499/2012

¶10

.y-^.^

¶11

Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate for the appellants. Smt. Chjtra Shrivastava, Advocate for respondent no.3.

¶12

(1) Appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded in ciaim case no. 240/2011 by the 4 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) vide award datfed 09-11-2011.

¶13

(2^ Appellant no.1 is wife and appellant no. 2 is son of deceased - Gajanand, Gajanand was aged about 65 years. He died in a motor accident on 24-09-2009. The appeliants filed a claim petition u/s 166 the Motor Vehicle Act claimingcompensation of Rs. 15,50,000/for the death of deceased - Gajanand in the motor accident. The appellants pleaded that the deceased had retired from Health Department and was earning Rs. 1,00,0007- per year by cultivation of his agricultural lands. The appellants examined Smt. Umathi Bai (A.W.-1) and Tulsiram Verma (A.W.-2) in support of their claim petition. Umathi Bai is wife of the deceased. She deposed in para 4 that appeilant no; 2, son of the deceased, is a pollo patient and he was also depen'dent on the income ofthe deceased. The Tribunal held that no such pleading was there in the claim petition and no documents were -filed to show that appellant no. 2 was suffering

¶14

¶15

i.1

¶16

(3) MA(C)No. 499/2012

¶17

from polio and was dependent on the deceased. The Tribunal, therefore, rejected the above contention. The Tribunal on its own, assessed Rs. 3,000/- as monthly income of the deceased. By deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased the dependency was worked out to Rs. 1,500/- per month and Rs. 18,000/- per annum. The Tribunal applied multipiier of 5 to the above annual dependency of Rs. 18,000/- and compensation was worked out to Rs. 90,000/-. The Tribunal a!so awarded Rs. 30,000/in other heads and the totai amount.'of compensation was worked ou^to Rs. 1,20,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date offiling of the claim petition till the date otaotual payrnent. The insurance company was held liable to pay the amount of compensation.

¶18

(3) Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants argued that the income of the deceased was not properiy assessed; the deduction of 50% towards the persona! expenses of the deceased was not proper; and low compensation has been awarded.

¶19

On the other hand Smt. Chitra Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.S/lnsurance Company opposed these arguments. -•T ^

¶20

(5) ;'We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have' atso perused the records of the claim case.

¶21

(4) M.A-(C) No. 499/2012

¶22

(6) So far as income of the deceased is concerned, claimanfchave pleaded that the deceased was getting some pension and he was a!so earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per year by cultivation of agricultural lands. Umathi Bai (A.W.-1) has also supported the above contention. The agricultural lands are still with the family of the deceased. The Tribunal, therefore, on its own estimate held that in all probability income of the deceased can be held as Rs. 3,000/per month. The accident took place in the year 2009. Even otherwise, income of Rs. 3,000/- per month in the year 2009, in ^ absence of any pieading relating to specific source of income, does nst appear to be unreasonable. Th.e Tribunal taking a togical view has held fhat the deceased wouid have easily earned Rs. 3,000/-

¶23

(7) The deduction of 50% also does not appear to be unreasoraable. According to the claim petition the appellant no. 2, son of the deceased, was aged about 47 years on the date of accident, A.W.-1 (Umathi Bai) has deposed that he wassuffering from polio, therefore, he was also dependent on the deceased. The Tribunal has rejected the above contention on two grounds, first that there was no pleading to this effect in the claim petition and second that evenjn the evidence no material was produced by the appellants to show that the appellant no. 2 was suffering form polio. Therefore, it was not proved that the appellant no. 2, who was aged about 47 years', was in fact dependent on the deceased. tf we keep

¶24

¶25

(5) M.A.(C) No. 499/2012

¶26

¶27

the case of appellant no.2 out of consideration, there were only 2 members in the family of the deceased, and then appellant no. 1 would be solitary dependent of the deceased. In this view of the matter, deduction of 50% was fut!y justified.

¶28

(8) The deceased was aged about 65 years. The muttiplier of 5 also appears to be correct in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others v/s Delhi Transport

¶29

For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal fiied by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of compensation, therefore, faiis and the same is accordihgty dismissed.

¶30

orders as to cost.

¶31

:Sd/KusBarSiaha Judge

¶32

Sd/Radhe Shyam Sharma Judge

¶33

Smt. Umathi Bai and Anr. v. Vinod Patankar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Umathi Bai and Anr. v. Vinod Patankar 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

Narottam Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prijmohan Mittal Vs State Of C.g. and Ors.

Smt. G.Sarojini Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pankaj Pyara Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Subhan Ali Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jaisingh Vs the State of M.P.