Partly allowed

Deepak Kumar Tiwari and Another v. Narendra Kumar Thakur and Others

Chhattisgarh HC6 Jul 2012MAC/755/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Following the tribunal's exoneration of the insurance company due to policy breach, the Court reduced the compensation awarded to the claimants based on a revised multiplier and income assessment, aligning with Supreme Court jurisprudence on dependency loss.

What did the court decide?

Appeal partly allowed. Insurance Company exoneration affirmed. Award modified and reduced from Rs. 2,92,000/- to Rs. 1,83,000/-.

Deepak Kumar Tiwari and Another Vs Narendra Kumar Thakur and… — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

^<)'
c'c'"'l>

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARHl

¶3

M.A.fC^Np. q-^s" 72010 Siiiflle Senct

¶4

^f^PELLANTS

¶5

J.. Deepak Kumar Tiwari, S/o. .Krishna Kumar Tiwari, age about 31 resident of years, ' Rajeev Nagar, Basantpur City, Tahsil & District - Rajnandgaon

¶6

'
^^<wijl
^";^
^L.
^'^v -^-

¶7

(C.G.). (OWNER)

¶8

Komal Tiwari, S/o. Ballu Prasad Tiwari, aged about 24 years, Resident of Village Baghtarai, Thana - Lalbagh, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). •

¶9

(DRIVER)

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

RESPONDENTS 1, NQN-APPLICANTS

¶12

¶13

Narendra Kumar Thakur, S/o. Govardhan SinghThakur/age 45 years.

¶14

Smt. Pushpa Thakur, W/o. Narendra Thakur. Both residents of Ramnagar, Ward No.5 Motipur, .Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶15

.Rajnandgaon

¶16

(Claimants).

¶17

Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Kamti Line, Branch

Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

(Insurer)

.4.

Kanahiyalal Sahu, S/o. not known, resident of Basantpur, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon..

¶23

(Ex-Owner).

¶24

¶25

MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S. 173 OF THE MOTQR

¶26

VEHICLEACT 1988.

¶27

COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶28

¶29

APPBLLANT8 : Deepale KiimaiTiwai-i aiid another. Versiis RESPONDBNTS F^areiidra Kuaiai Thakiuaiid otlicrs, APPEALUNDER SECTION 173 OFTHE MOTOR 'v'EHICLES ACT. 1988 fSB : HGFfl?BLB 3HRI G. MINHAJUDDjN^ J.J

¶30

Preseufe: S^lri Abhishek Sharma, counsel for the appeUaiits, Shri V,K. Agrawal, counsel appears on bchalf of Shri B,D. Gura, couuscl for rcspondcnts No. 1 & 2. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No,3/!nsuraace Coinpaay.

¶31

GRAL ORDBR

¶32

IPassed on 6th da¥-ofJuly. 20121

¶33

This appeal has been filed by the appeUaiits undei' Section 173 oftiie Motor Vel-ucles Act, 1988 (for short 'tlie Act, 19881 agai.ast tlie awai-d dated 16-04-2010 passed by Motor Accldeiit claims Tribuual, Rajnaiidgaon iii Claiiii Case No. 194/2007, fastenii-ig th.e liabluty upon tlie appeUaiits to pay coiiipensatiou to tiie clamiants.

¶34

¶35

Brief facts of tiie case as per averments made by tlie claimaiits iii tiieu claim ai-e tiiat on 07-07-2007 petifion Pushpendra alias Pappu Thakui" was goiag along wlfli his fauiily members from Ramnagai- to vlUage Fafamar by Tata Sumo bearmg reglstration No. C.G. 13-ZD/0729. On accoiiut of rash aiid negligent drivuig oftlie driver appellaiit No.2 herr.ia, tlie said vehicle tiuTAed turtle, as a result of whlch PLishpendra alias Pappu Tliakur Stistaiiied grievo-as iajuries aad succLimbed to the same uLU'iag treatment. Report of tlie accident was lodged in tlie Police Station Lalbag aiid offences puiiishable -ander Sectious 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC were registered. At ti-ie time of accident, tlie age ofthe deceased was 17 years.

¶36

The respondents No. 1 & 2/clamiants hereiii bemg legal helis of tiie deceased had filed a petition before tiie Claims TTlbunal under Section 166 of flie Act, 1988 claimmg a total

¶37

A.. "'^ /.^ ^ ^:^^^^f^ 1 ^ ^^tj^^^-Qa^ ^ ^y

¶38

coiupensation of Rs.48,50,000/- uiider various heads, for tlie deafli of flieir son.

¶39

4, The leaiiiecl Claims Tdbunal oa a close scrutuiy ofevidence led, iiiaterial placed aad SLibmissions made by fhe parties has pai'tly aUowed Uie claim petition aiid exoneratiiig respoiicleut No. 3/Insuraace Coiupany, has feistened the liabluty to pay compeiisation to the clamiaiits, Joiutly aud severally upon fiie appellaiits hereiii (owiier aiicl ciriver) .

¶40

I have heard learo..ed counsel for the parties aB.d perased flie record as well as th.e iiupug.ued award.

¶41

Leai'ned counsel fijr tlie appellarits/owner arid diivei has coiitended that respondeut No. 3/Insuj'aace Compauy h.as,bee.il unsuccessftil in provliig th.at the vehicle in qiiestiou was be.kig plied iu. breach of teriiis aiid conditions of the iiisurance policy aiid as such fSie clakiis Tribujj.al has com.mitted error iii exoneratkig resporident No.S/Iiisurfcuidce Compaiiy fr-oiii its llaljility. He has fu.rfher couteiided that tbe compensatio.a has been assessed exorbitaiiflY because deceased -was a bachelor aiid claiiuaiits are lils pai'eiits but despite tliat iiiultipUer of 17 has been applled which needs to be reduced suitably.

¶42

On Uie. other harid/ leaiTiecl couiisel for respoiident No.S/Iusuraiice Compaiiy has cooteuded that on tlie b.a.sis of adjiiissioas inade by the parents of fhe deceased, it starids proved that tliere had beeii a cleai" breach of ternis and conditioas of the Misuraiice policy 011 tlie pm~t of owner and driver of tlie offencluig velilcle because tlie vehicle was beiiig plied for hii'e whereas, the sauie was registered as a private vehicle aiid, tlierefore, tlie respoiident No.S/Iiisurance CoBipaiiy has riglitly been exonerated from its liabllity.

¶43

Learned coiuisel for fhe respondents/ciauiiarits liave suppoited tlie inipugned awaid aiid have also submitted fliat tlie lacoiiie of flie deceased has been assessed on flie lower side because he was ruruiirig a kiraaa shop aiid was eaiTmjg Rs.5000/- per moiitli.

¶44

/^..^A-, %' ^sgSS^h ^ •^-..// ^:^,^

¶45

i ^sgSS^h ^

¶46

So far as the breach of teriiis aiid condltlons of uisuraiice polley^{isconcerned,fromflieevldenceoralaiiddocumeutary} avallable ou record, especially tlie admissions iD.ade by tlie pai-ents witiiesses No. 1 & 2 of the deceased iii the crossexamiiiatiou, it has been proved fliat at tiie time of accident, flie vehicle was beiiig plied on liire aiid tlierefore, tli.ere had been breacli of terms aad conditLons of flie uisuraiice policy on account of wliich tlie respondent No.S/Insupaiice Coiiipaiiy has been rlghtly exonerated.

¶47

¶48

¶49

So fai- as flie quaiittim is coiicerned, ttie Ckdms TribtUial has assessed tlie monthly iucome of fhe deceased Pushpeudra as Rs,2000/- and has applied tlie multipller of 17 for computuig tlie loss of dependency, The Claijns Tribunal has deducted l/3rd towai-ds personal aiid liviiig expenses oftlie deceased. It is uot ui dispute tliat at the tiiue of accident, fhe deceased P-iislipendra was a bachelor aged about 17 - 18 yeai-s and fhe claiiiiaiite are his pai'euts. As such, tlie average age of the parents w.lll have to be takeu iiito coiisideration ia applyiiig tlie liitiltiplier aiid 3(y>o has to be cleducted towards personal and livlug expenses of tlie deceased.

¶50

Learned counsel for the responderits/clalaiaiits has subiiiitted that tlie liicoBie of tlie deceased has been assessed on tlie lower side because it shotild have been assessed as Rs.5000/per luontli. As no cross-objection for enhaiiceiiient 011 behatf of tlie respondents/claluiants has been flled, fherefore, in fhis appeal which has been filed by flie owner arid driver, fhe same caiiuot be enhaiiced. The isionflilY iiicome of tlie deceased has been assessed as Rs.2000/- per Dionth. After deductuig 50% i.e. Rs.1000/-, flie loss of dependency per ijaoutli comes to Rs.1000/Le. Rs.12000/- per annum. The age of the faflier has been sliown as 45 years aiid the age of Biother has aot been iD.entioned. As s~ach iri view of flie law laid down bv Hon^ble t3ie Supreme Court iii fh.e ma.tter of Sarla Vcrmja (Sint) arid ^therB i?s. Selhi State i?oad Trwwpwrt C^rpwraUwt arsjd Arwthcr, reported m (2009) 6 SCC 121, multiplier of 14 wlil have to be applied. Ac'cordiiigly, tiie total loss of dependency coBies to Rs. 12000 X 14 = 1,68,000/-. Iu addltlou. to Uiis, fl-ie

¶51

.-.T-"y :'?^gl^ ;• ^'

¶52

¶53

respondents/claimaats wlll be entiUed to Rs.10,000/- towaids loss ofestate aiid Rs.5000/- towards fiuieral expenses. Thus, tlie respondeuts/claiinants wlll be entitled to a total coiiipensation of Rs.1,83,000/- aiid iaterest @ 7% per aiinuiiL froiii tiie date of fiting of claim. petitlon tUl its realisation.

¶54

12, Iu tiie result, tiie appe^d 1s partiy allowed. Tlie fiiiclmg recorded by tlie Claims Tribunal exonerating respondent No.S/Insuraiice CoBipaiiy and fasteiiiiig tlie llability upou the appellaiits (owner aiid driver) to pay coinpensation is hereuy affunied. However, the award 1s Biodifiecl and reducecl frojLii Rs.2,92,000/to Rs.1,83,000/-. Rest of ti.ie coadiuons lue.atloned iii tlie awm-d of the Claims TribLinal sh^iJl remaiii iii tact.

¶55

^w^

¶56

No order as to costs.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

G. Minhajuddin Judge

¶59

Kvr

Deepak Kumar Tiwari and Another v. Narendra Kumar Thakur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Kumar Tiwari and Another v. Narendra Kumar Thakur 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

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Devesh Awashthi

Commissioner Municipal Corporation Vs Kanisa Begum and Others

Vinay Kumar Gupta Vs Fagni and Ors.

Manoj Kumar and Another Vs Bajrang Singh Dhruv and Others

Icici Lombard General Ins.Co.Ltd Vs Ved Prakash and Another

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Ayatoo Ram and Others