Allowed

Smt Samarin Bai and Another v. Abdul Jahir and Anothr

Chhattisgarh HC7 Feb 2012MAC/534/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the appeal dismissing the impugned order of the Claims Tribunal. Noting material witness contradictions, the court assessed damages based on minimum wages and awarded Rs. 2,31,000/- to the appellants from the insurance company.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of Rs. 2,31,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. awarded to be paid by the insurance company.

Smt Samarin Bai and Another Vs Abdul Jahir and… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

»•

¶2

•..!1..'l-'~l.'1-t.'f°i.«.-.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH C -<^ MISELLANEOUS APPEAL (C) N0. - ^^ OF 2010y?"!?";'? a o a ©

¶4

(MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEmCLES ACT, 1988)

¶5

APPELLANTS 1.

¶6

CLAIMANTS

¶7

Smt. Samarin Bai W/o Late Dayanidhi, aged ^><*'about 58 years, Occupation- House Wife, Caste — Khadiya,

¶8

Smt. Kaushilya W/o Ganeshu, aged about 30 years, Occupation - House Wife, Caste - Kliadiya,

¶9

Both R/o- Village- Gudnidhih, Police Station - Tumgaon, Tahsil & District- Mahasamund (C.G. )

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

RESPONDENTS NON-CLAIMANTS

¶12

¶13

¶14

Abdul Jahir S/o Abdul Rahim, aged about 45 45 years, R/o - Village- Sinodha (Patewa), Tahsil & District- Mahasamund (C.G. ) [Driver and Registered owner ofvehicle Motor Cycle bearing registration No. C.G.06D/1570]

¶15

The Iffco-Toluo General Insurance Company Limited through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Lalganga Shoping Complex, G.E. Road, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶16

[Insurer ofvehicle Motor Cycle bearing registration No. C.G. 06 D/1570]

¶17

MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 QFTHE MOTOR YEHICLES ACT, 1988

fc'

--rn

&IVISION BEMCH:

,HQNlBLt_&R. J,A1._QUDDU; »,^^6-)^t V— ;S.?LS^i <* A£T^i)_i A '^t S*^

¶24

for the appellants. ^5 f" re for respondent No.l. the respondent No.2. OR&ER (O."a!l ith

¶25

None for the respondent No.2.

¶26

The appellants-claimants ha.ve filed misceltaneous aooeal wwns't *i impugned awnrd dated 18.6.200' ed by the learned Chief A'1o'the

¶27

(for brevity Ciajr

¶28

Tr-tbunai') in Claim Case No.08/09.

¶29

Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 01.12.2008 deceased Dayanidhi wo.s going on his bicycle towards Mahasamund from TumgQon and when he reached near fiadaghat-Kaneker'a, at that time a motor'cycie bear'ing reqistration number C606-D-1570, coming from the oDDosite side and being driven in rash A negligent wanner- by its driver, dashed Itse bicycle of the said DaycinJdhi as a result of which he sustained grieyous on his head, chest & o^hsr parts of the body. He was admitted in the District Hospital, AAelhasnmund for treatment whe.re he died whils underaoinq treo.tment.

¶30

mants, who ars widow & mother of the deceased. have fifed c!i iication ctaiminq of Rs.6.00,000/un<

¶31

ious heads on grouno that they wer-e dependent on the deceased, was sole member in the family, and due to his death, they have

-ittered loss

•^

The Claims Tribunai after hearing the in the matter and porties considering the evidence ayoiilable on record, dismissed the claim application of ths claimants.

¶36

We hnve heard iearned counsel for the aDDellants & resDondent No.l and oerused the records of the Ctaims Tribunai.

¶37

Though the conclusion a9ainst Issue No.l was given by the Claims Tribuncl in affirmative but finding..Fecorded in this r'egard was in negative. AAsaning rash and neQli iicle, iasis of the said finding -2); iss of the accident, is not a retiabie witness.

¶38

We have summoned the ^iS !fl^3i^l<3^'i^ ( <&i l£iUt UtUfbAiI-^ 1^.3 I • i driver of the offendini .hicie and found thnt the Diliion rider, who is wi'fe of the dpiver of offendiina vehicie, in her stGtement recorded undei" Section 161 of the Cr.P. had stated oibout the fact of accident. However, before the Claims Tribunail she denied t'he fact of accident. It was also driver as well as his Aenui Bi was conducted by &r. J.P. Diwan.

¶39

Thus, we found that said Abdul Zahee", Smt. Aenu! Bi and &r. J.P. &iwai are the materia! witnesses in ordered for their personal appearance. e aot Knoto! driver of the offending vehicie s.e. Zaheer as such, on iy said Smt. Aenui Bi & &r. J.P. Diwan have been

¶40

first Doint of time, before this Court aiso, said Smt.^Aenul 8i^stuckto statefnent made before the Ciaims Tribunal, however, when she was

¶41

confronted with Dr. J.P. Diwan, who had examined her on 01.12.2008 and stated befo're this Court that on l.12.2008 at 12.40 p.m. said Mrs. Aenui $ee, who is present in the. Court having black mole on the neck, was

¶42

admitted in the District Hospital, Mahasamund and was discharged on the next day i.e. 2.12.2008, she admitted that due to fear that she may not be tved in the mo.tter further and recovery may not be made from her,

¶43

she aave state-ment that no acci

¶44

¶45

-y.-^ "s>. y f t6i -^"-',^-'^^^'

¶46

•?

¶47

admitted that she was admitted in the hospital and Dr. Oiwan qave her treatment.

¶48

In view of the aboye, this Court is of in question had infact taken place on 01.12.2008 and the deceased got injunes due to rash and neqliqent dnvinc dnver ot yehicle and late" on succumbed to those injuries

¶49

On perusa! of the record of the Claims Tribunol it is evident that the driver of offending vehicle was having vaiid and effectiye driving iicence on 1+ie date of accident. The yehicle was also insured with the insurance compcny for the relevant period and the accident was a third party accident. In these circumstances, the ctaim appiication fiied by the claimants should have been ailowed by the Claims Tribunal and the insurance company shouid haye been heid iiable to pay compensation to the claimants. However. the same has not been done by the Claims Tribunai and therefore instead of remitting the matter back to the Ciaims Tribunal for takinci decision afresh, as the material witness herself has admitted the facT of accident, we propose to assess the compensation.

¶50

In absence of any documentary proof with regard to the income of the deceased, we assess annuai income of the deceased as Rs.36,000/- i.e. Rs.3,000/- per month, that is to say, minimum wages as provided under the Atinimum Waqes Ac't. Further, we deduct 1/3 from the annual incom®of the deceased towards personai and living expenditure of the deceased and accordingly the total loss of income suffered by the ctaimants comes to Rs.24,000/- [36000^- 12000 (l/3r° of annua! income)]. As the deceassd was 60 years of age at the time of accident, therefore, foiiowing the case another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. muitiplier O is a( The total ioss of income and thus, the loss of c Rs.2,16,000/- (24000x9). Besides this, the ciaimanl titlea' tor fts.5,000/- towards loss of consor'tium, Rs.5,000/of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funera! expenses.

¶51

^sSs^S^^^^^^^^Sfs^&s'.-^L.

¶52

i!^^,
6 ^
!»». ^-ys.S/
•'•^S^^a''^

¶53

!»». ^-ys.S/

¶54

). In the resuit, the appeal is •d is set aside and a sum of Rs.2,31,000/is to the apoellantsclaimants atong wjth intersst @ 6%. p.a. fr-om the oate of filing of application till the actual payment is made. We a'iso hoid that the amount of compensation shall be paid by the respondent No.i

¶55

^^to.-ccsts.

¶56

Sd/I.M.Quddusi Judge

¶57

Sd/G. Minhajuddin Judge

¶58

lafSI^SWialSliSVi'aa^ssaaeit

Smt Samarin Bai and Another v. Abdul Jahir and Anothr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Samarin Bai and Another v. Abdul Jahir and Anothr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Salik Ram and Others Vs Mahan Singh and Others

Smt.Fudni Bai and Others Vs Anil Kumar Gupta and Others

Mohan Lal Sahu and 0RS Vs Saubhagyavati Bai and Ors.

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co.Lt. Vs Chandrika and Another

Bajaj Allianz General Insu.Co. Vs Sukhchand Patle and Ors.

Vipin Punjabi Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.