Dismissed

Fatte Singh v. Lalita Das and Others

Chhattisgarh HC1 Feb 2012MAC/895/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against the impugned award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal relating to a fatal motorcycle accident where the pillion rider died due to rash and negligent driving. The court examined eyewitness testimony regarding the speed and negligence of the appellant driver.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. The appeal is dismissed holding the Tribunal's decision on liability and quantum to be without error.

Fatte Singh Vs Lalita Das and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

d%Si3Blt|IlNSililKSSgBJMiSi^^ aKBiBiiiiinwK%; nsmtf;< Wl.AMtBHioI

¶2

¶3

RESI:*<»iagN1"S^

¶4

^tita^p)a%;^.%^.¥?l-at^fff^ertara? @aS^@^:a^G'ut^213:years,^^s?^:: f.:..:•'.•••• •".:-'- •' ,-'..^::'';' ...:. ':: ^•;'. •':. ':

¶5

^aSillii§tl'i[^@|as.KS/a^^|.-at|H^aieE:tgtra^ !Iia|,"|i|i^^aboui^^ari|1|t'tl'ouQtii TiatH'ral@gual-el:iarei>®'iiEt'ie^g@alita, tR)a^^^iEaf^F^en(Jira;^©a$i®|l;K;?

¶6

^t.|nGt^ri|©sis?iS/&il..at@!@11ivcharanS :@as^a@e£|;ai^uK@3|^i'sgK^i;Wt

¶7

iM^ :ii^i'?@(ai,^UBBicter'!tC3aSg: ^ag^ial3®yt;5,t^|[rs,|^yj|S

¶8

^tiisjil'B^gVttletg^g^n-iiii^gSiost; Iii^|rgjigjii^lllj|ti®i^iisi}? ;l.a^|i|ij|Bi'j|0J!§ ||S||^|j||%|^g|

¶9

•^•t

¶10

iffcNUiBiittNil^M U3aBttiiWBB^iBBii§BSIili

¶11

¶12

HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH^ EILASPUR

¶13

DR. JUSTICE I. M. QUDDUSI & >»T-^

¶14

MR. JUSTiCE S. MINHAJUDNN,

¶15

M. A.iC). No, 893/2010

¶16

Fatte Siagh

¶17

Vs.

¶18

LaEita Das aiid others

¶19

MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION- 173 05' THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,198S

¶20

Mr. G.V.K. Rao, Counsel for fhe appeUant.

¶21

Mr. A. K. Prasad, Counsel for respondents 1 to 4.

¶22

PBR Dr, I.M^QUDDUSL J,

¶23

1.	This appeal has been filed bv fhe omier of fhe Motorcycle
	agaiiist the inipugned award dated 29.06.2010 passed by tlie
	IVth Additioiial Motor Accident Claims Tribunal IFTC),
	Ambikapur, District Sar^-uja (C.G) m Claim Case No.28/2009
	cballenging the Uability itnposed upon fhe appeHaiit as also quantuni.
2.	' Brief facts of fhe case are fiiat fhe claimaats have filed claiin
	petitionu/s 166 offtie Motor Vehicles Act for the award oftotal
	coinpensation of Rs.16 lakhs on ^iioiis heads allegm.g fhat on
	01.02.2009 the appeUsaitwas drivuis the newly purchased Baiai
	Platma Motorcycle bearmg Chasis No.MD2DDJKZZRWF-16983
	Engme No.JAMBRF-95222 ou which Rajendra Das (deceased)
	was sittiag as pfflion rider. On tlie way, at the turmiig point of
	Rajpuri Sirkotaaga jaarg, the inotorcycle inetwifh accident dlie

¶24

__ __.^. ^f^^—^^.

¶25

¶26

,<;"'"*'»»>-'•<">
^^
^ y^^^^t.'^^SSBSSSSi^^ jS
3: ^ .y j
^te^^s^^

¶27

to rash aad negligent drivin.g of its driver that is appellaat herein, as a result of which, tiie deceased who was sitting as piUion^{riderfeUofFfrom.theMotorcycleanddiedonfhespot.} The iacideat was witnessed by Sukluiandaxi Das, Hariprasad, Tarachaiid, Mahendra, Naresh Kiunar who were residents of villages Rajpuri and Sirkotanga. At fhe tune of accident, fhe deceased was aged about 22 years; he was working in S.E.C.L. Latori Nawapara as general worker aad was eaniing Rs.9000/per inonth..

¶28

The learaed Clauns Tribunal held fhat fhe accident took place due to rash aiid negUgent driving of the luotorcycle by its driver fhat is appeUant, as a result ofwhich, fhe pillion rider. Rajendra Das feU off froin fhe niotorcvcle and died aad the claunants are entifled to get a total coBipeusation of Rs.4,33,000/- froin fhe appeUant.

¶29

We have heard leamed -counsel for ftie parties and have also ;one fhrough the records of the Tribunal.

¶30

Clamiaiit/respondent No.l Lalita Das has examiaed aa eyewitness Naresh Kuiu.ar as A.W.2 who has stated in his evidence that when he aad his friends Han Prasad, Mahendra and Kotwar Sukhnaadan were goiag from. village Sirkotaaga to Rajpuri, fhey had seen fhe appeUaiit driviag th.e iiiotorcycle, OD. which Rajendra Das was sitting as piUion rider aad the appellant has caused fhe accident,' due to which, Rajendia Das sustaiaed tajuries on head, both fhe legs and ofher parts of the body aiid died. He has further stated that on seeiug fheiu rusbiiig to fhe spot, the appellan.t had fled from. the sceue leavtug his m.otorcvcle. This witaess ia his cross examitiation has also adhered to fhe said statem.ents. Thus fhis witness has

¶31

-s'ssi^^sssf^SSSssss^ssssisessWl iiwjiuiui^ui.iiiuiiB

¶32

¶33

^f'"^
,f k^ ^-i
^.sc
' -•^S^SS'- yj

¶34

stated fhat the appeUaat was fhe driver of tiie offendtag niotorcvcle. Therefore. we are of fhe opiaion fhat the Tribunal has not conunitted anv error of law in fasteniiig liabiiity on t3ie appeUaut to pay coinpensatioa to fhe claimaats.

¶35

Now coiiiuig to fhe questi.an of q-dailtum, th.e Tnbuiial has taken. fhe incoiae of tbe deceased as Rs.3000./- per montb. though fhe claita.auts have pleaded it ia the claim petition as Rs.9000/- per aionfh. Thus ttie Tribunal to.as treated fhe aiuiual incom.e as Rs.36,000/-. After deductiag l/3rd towards person.al a&d livia^ expenses, the aunual loss of dependency was worked out as Rs.24,000/-. The deceased was aged about 22 years and lookuig to his age, fhe Tribunal has applied laultiplier 17 which is also not on higher side ru view of the decision of the Supreiae Court ia

¶36

Corporsxtion anA another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 where ruultiplier 18 tias been prescribed for ttte age group of 21-25 years. On applying the m.ultipUer 17, fhe total loss of dependency was worked out as Rs.4,08,000/^-. Besides this, it has also graiited Rs.25.000/- in all over fh.e ofher heads. Thus, in our oniiuon, it cannot t>e said fhat fhe total compensation amount of Rs.4,33,000/- granted by the Tribuaal is on higher side aad we do not fiiid any good ground warraiitiiii Miterference in. fhe impugned award.

¶37

In fhe result, fhe appeal has no force. It is liable to be and is

¶38

herebv disinissed. No order as to costs.

Rao

Sd/-

I.M.Quddusi Judge

Sd/G. Minhajuddin Judge

Fatte Singh v. Lalita Das and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fatte Singh v. Lalita Das 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 Shri Kishan Agrawal

National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Smt. Motin Bai and Ors.

Reliance Genral Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Radha Dhruv and Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Vs Smt. Kamin Bai and Ors.

Branch Manager,Oriental Insurance Co.L Vs Visheshwar Mishra and Others

Ashish Bhandge Vs Smt.Geeta Bhandge