Partly allowed

Sukhu Ram and Another v. Man Singh and Others

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jun 2012MAC/522/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench enhanced compensation in a motor accident claim case. Recognizing the Central Government's failure to amend the compensation schedule for inflation, the Court recalculated notional income and applicable multipliers to award a more just and proper sum to the deceased parents.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- enhanced to Rs.1,90,000/- with interest of Rs.5,000/-; Respondent No.3 granted three months to deposit the total enhanced amount.

Sukhu Ram and Another Vs Man Singh and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

^p.

'S^^S^DS^

HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH At BILASPUR

¶5

¶6

DIVISION BENCH

¶7

CORAIVI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA.CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, il.

¶8

Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 522 of 2007

¶9

ADpellarits 1. Sukhu Ram s/6 Shiv Singh Thakur, aged about 45 years, 2. Smt. Harish Bai w/o Sukhu Ram, aged about 40 years,

¶10

Both r/o vJllageAbrai, thana& tehsil Kasdol, dist. RaipurC.G.

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

ResDondents 1. Man Singh s/o Baratu Ram Dhobi, aged about 38 years, caste Dhobi, r/o village Pjperchedi, thana & tehsil Kasdol, distt. Rajpur C.G. Driver

¶13

2 Manohar Sjngh s/oAmar Singh r/6 Street 31 B, Qr. No.SD, Sector-7, Bhilai,dist. DurgC.G. Owner 3 Tata AIG General Insurahce Company Corporate Office Ahura Centre, 4th building, 82 Mahakali, Kebis Road, Andheri, Mumbai, Branch Bhilai, dist. Durg C.G. Insurer

¶14

MemoofaDDeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act

¶15

Present: Shri D^epakJain,counselfortheappellants. Shri At)hishek Sinha, counsel forrespondentNo.3.

¶16

ORDER \ (15thJune,2012)

¶17

M.A.C.No. 522 of 2007

¶18

¶19

The following order of the Court was passed by

¶20

RajeevGupta, C.J.

¶21

Theunfortunate parents of deceased Nirmal Kumararethe appellants before us in this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar, district Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 26.12.2006, passed in Claim Case No.21/2006.

¶22

As against the compensationof Rs.13,05,000/-claimed by the appellants/ claimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Nirmal Kumar, by filing aclaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motoraccident on 19.08.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,70,000/as compensation alongwith interest @ 7% perannum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entjre evidence led before it held that deceased Nirmal Kumar died on account ofthe fc jnjuries sustainedby himin the motor acddenton 19.08.2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclistof the offending Honda Splendor Motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.07-G/4074; as the above offending motorcycle, on the date ofthe accident, wasinsured with the Tata AIG General Irisurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, fhe Insurance Cdn^panywas liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

¶23

MAC.No. 522 of 2007

¶24

As the ihsurer of the above offending Motorcycle has not filed any appeal against the impugned award challenging the above fjndings recorded by the Trjbunal, the same now have attained finality.

¶25

The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum onthebasis of the notional incbme prescribed^{intheSecondScheduleunderSection163-Aof} the Motor Vehicles Act. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the personal^{expensesofthedeceased,thedaimants'dependency} was assessed at Rs.10,000/- perannum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multiplier of 16, the compensation was worked out to Rs.1,60,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.10,000/- under other heads.the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,70,000/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of their son Nirmal Kumar in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment 6f interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- @ 7% per annum fromthe date of filing of theclaim petition till the dateof actual payment.

¶26

Shri Deepak Jain, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants' evidence about the income of the deceased and in assessing his incpme at Rs.15,000/- per' annum only; and jn ;<(., ,, ,• awarding low cohipensation'\ of Rs.1,70,000/-'•: • only. . . .. /... . ,. 7)>.;.•• ^ Shri• AbhJshe^• • •. . . ~ '* Sihha,^••'. • .! learned' ' counsel• for .respondent. . • . N6.3,'. : •' '• the Tata AIG General Insurance Company Umited, the insurer of

¶27

¶28

M.A.C.No. 522 of 2007

¶29

¶30

the offending Motorcycle, on the other hahd, supported the award and contended that as the claimants'son Nirmal Kumar was aged about 16years only, the compensationof Rs.1,70,000/-awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensationin the facts ahd circumstances of the present case.

¶31

Ina motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensatjon to be awarded by the Courts/TrJbunals should be just and propercompensationin the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nora Bonanza.

¶32

Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,70,000/awarded by the Tribunal is just andproper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 10) True, the claimants pleaded that their son Nirmal Kumar was aged about 19 years and used to earnRs.4,000/- per month by runninga Kirana Shop in the village, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above fc. occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.4,000/- per month. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimants' evidence about the income ofthe deceased.

¶33

The Tribunalwhile discarding the claimants' evidence about the income of ttie deceased has assessed the income of the ^.. deceased at Rs^15,000/.J<.-—. per annum . on the . basis . of the notional \ income prescrjbed^n fhe Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

—^:-—-""-^-

MAC.No. 522 of 2007

Section 163-A of the Act where-under the Secbnd Schedule was introduced in the year 1994 reads as follows:

¶38

¶39

"[163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in thisActor in any other law for the time being^in force orinstrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle 1or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legalheirs or the victim, as the case may be.

¶40

¶41

Explanation^- For the purposes of this sub-section, "permanent disability" shall have the samemeaning and extent asinthe Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of1923).

¶42

(2) In any claim for compensation under subsection(l), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death orpermanent disablement in respectof which the claim has been madewas due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.

¶43

The Central Government may, keeping in view (3) the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to timeamend the Second Schedule."

¶44

The a^ove quoted Sub- sectiori (3) of Section 163-Aofthe Act mandated\the Central Government to amend the Second Schedule from time to time keeping in view the cost ofliving.

MAC.No. 522 of 2007

III jrl(jl i

As the Central Government has failed in amending the Secbnd Schedule as provided in Sub-section (3) ofSection 163-A of the Act, the Courts/ Tribunal can take judidal notjce of increase in the prices of essential commodities and the cost of living during the period between the introduction of the Second Schedule in the year 1994 and the date ofacddent in the given case.

¶50

Now revertingto the presentcase, the unfortunateaccjdent wherejn deceased Nirmal Kumar lost his life took place in theyear 2005. lf the ihcrease in the prices of the essential commodities and thecost of living between the year 1994and the year 2005 are taken into consideration, the notional incomeof Rs.15,000/prescribed in the Second Schedule in the year1994 would certainly come to Rs.36,000/- in the year 2005. We, therefore, propose to recompute theCompensation taking the incomeofthe deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum.

¶51

Consjdering that deceased Nirmal Kumar, on the dateof the accjdent, was unmarried, we deem it properto deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, in vjewof the dictao^ the ApexCourt in the cases of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others Versus Mohammed Jameel and another reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 225 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Versus DelhiTransport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. The claimants' '< dependehcy, th^refore, is assessed at Rs.18,000/- per annum by deducting 50% 6f Rs.36,000/- towards the persbnal expenses of

the deceased.

MAC.No. 522 of 2007

As theclaimants are parents of deceased Nirmal Kumar, the multiplier of 10, in our opinion, would be appropriate ih the present case in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Cdrporation of Greater BombSy Vs. Laxman lyer and anotlrer, reported in (2003) 8 SCC-731, whereinitwas held that in those cases where the claimants are parehts bf the deceased, the multipliershould neverexceed 10.

¶56

i!:i;r;

¶57

By multiplyjngthe annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with the multiplierof 10 the compensationworksout to Rs.1,80,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- forloss ofestate. The claimants, thus, becomeentitled to receive a total sum 6f Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation for the death of their son Nirmal Kumar in the motor accident.

¶58

The claimants are further awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/towards quantified amount ofinterest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.20,000/-.

¶59

¶60

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/ claimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,70,0007- awarded by the Tribunal isenhanced toRs.1,90,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.5,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation ofRs.20,000/-.

¶61

Respondbnt No.3 the Tata AIG General Insurance GGMnpany Limited i^ granted three months' time for depositing the -•* total sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only)

f^.-^.—^-

^^-—.-—-

^(o

MAC.No. 522 of 2007

towards enhanced amount of compensation + (Rs.20,000/Rs.5,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.20,000/-) before the concerning

¶67

Claims Tribunal.

¶68

No order as to costs.

¶69

Sd/ChiefJustice

¶70

Sd/R.N. Chandrakar Judge

¶71

subbu

¶72

•;.^'" \ i\

Sukhu Ram and Another v. Man Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhu Ram and Another v. Man Singh 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

Rajendra Kumar Vs Sheikh Ahmed and Others

Narendra Kumar Sahu Vs Mukhesh Kumar and Ors.

Kairi and Ors. Vs Vishnu Vishwas and Anr.

Smt. Jimat Bai and Ors. Vs Mohit Kumar Sahu and Ors.

Devki Bai Vs Manharan and Others

Pushpa Thakur Vs Rahim Khan and Others