Dismissed

Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ganga Bai Sahu and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC10 Apr 2013MAC/1005/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurer appealed against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs. 25,10,000 to claimants. The Court noted an initial total compensation claim of Rs. 73.65 Lakhs. The Judge held the Tribunal's assessment appropriate considering compassionate appointment deductions and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed summarily with no reduction in the Tribunal's award.

Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Ganga… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAPSUR

¶2

Misc. Appeal {C} No. t °° S 12012

¶3

APPELLANT Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, E/8, RIICO, Industrial Area, Sitapura, Post 85 P.8. Jaipur Rajashthan, Pin302 022. ^^ (INSURER)

¶4

VERSUS

¶5

RESPONDENTS

¶6

RESPONDENTS ^ Ganga Bai Sahu, Wd/o Late Digambar Dayal Sahu, aged abou^ 45 years, ^,.2-)Rishi Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Digambar Dayal Sahu, aged about 21 years, Chandrahas . Sahu, S/o Late ..3) Digambar Dayal Sahu, aged about 18 years, ^•4) Hardev Lal Sahu, S/o^Late Vishal Sahu, aged about 75 years, BNO-...-^O-^S^ p^tedWSW.^^ • 5). Smt. Dashoda Sahu, W/o Hardev Dated........-/r/T^"d'" Sahu, aged about 66 years,

¶7

All are R/o. Village Ranchirai, P.S. Ranchirai 85 Tahsil 85 PostGunderdehi, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Pin491223 ^- 6) Sudhir Jaiswal S/o Rameshchand Jaiswal, about 32 years, R/o. ward No. 11, Old Bazar, Post 8s P.8.Dallirahara, Distt. Durg (C.G.)' Pin491228 (DRIXTERl ^^f Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal, S/o Brajlal Jaiswal, Aged about 39 years, R/o. - Kacche, P.S. & Post Kacche (Bhanupratappur), Distt. Kanker, (C.G.) Pin-494669 ^-

¶8

¶9

¶10

MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THHE MQTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 AS AMENDED BY ACT OF 1994

. \

HIGH COURT OF CHIL<LTTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶18

M.A.fQNo. 1005 of 2012

¶19

APPELLANT : Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited

¶20

VERSUS

¶21

RESPONDENTS : Ganga Bai Sahu & others

¶22

(APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT) rSB: Hon'Me Mr. N.K. AsarwaL J.)

¶23

(£:

¶24

Present : Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Advocate for th^ appellant.

¶25

ORALAWARD * (Passed on 10/04/2013)

¶26

Heard on admission.

¶27

This is insurer's appeal against the award dated 14.08.2012 passed by IInd Additional Motor Accident CIaims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 175/2011. \

¶28

\v-

¶29

As against compensation ofRs. 73,65,120/- claimed by unfortunate widow, tvvo sons and parents of deceased Digamber Sahu by fiiing application under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short^'MV Act') for his deafh in the motor accident on 18.03.2011, the Tribunal awarded a total sum ofRs. 25JO,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of appiication till its acfuai payment.

¶30

The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held : the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration No. CG-07-C-6590 by its driver Sudhir Jaisvval

¶31

i.e. respondent No. 6; Digamber Sahu died in the said accident; appellant/insurance company liable for payment ofcompensation to the claimants as it could not establish violation ofpolicy conditions; and assessed and awarded aforesaid sum as compensation to the claimants.

¶32

^ (t^:

¶33

Leamed counsel appearing for the appellant would submit: Rishi Kumar Sahu i.e. son of deceased was given compassionate appointment and was getting salary ofRs. 11,815/- per month, l^ut the Tribunal vvhile assessing the amount of compensation has not properiy deducted the amount which Rishi Kumar was receiving as salary, and has awarded aforesaid sum^-which is shockingly on higher si^le which deservers to be suitably reduced.

¶34

¶35

I have heard the counsel appearing for the appellant and pemsed the award impugned.

¶36

¶37

Admittedly the gross salary ofdeceased was Rs. 27,136/- per month. As per income tax retiirn (Ex. P/3), his gross annual salary was Rs. 3,24,379/~ and deceased has paid income tax of Rs. 6630/-. Therefore, after deducting income tax (ofRs. 6630/-), gross salary of the deceased would be Rs. 3,17,749/- per annum. After taking into consideration fiiture increaseiin the salary ofdeceased as 30 percent, the salary of deceased for the purpose of computation of compensation wouid be Rs. 4,21,693/- {R/o 4,00,000/-) per annum. Looking to the age of deceased as 47 years at the time of accident,

¶38

•;3£y%y^.

¶39

multiplier of 13 would be appropriate in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in case ofSaria Verma (Smt.) & others V. Delhi Transport Corporation and another1, wherein multiplier of 13 has been prescribed for the age group between 46-50 years.

¶40

¶41

¶42

After deducting 1/3rd ofthe income ofdeceased tovvards his personal expenses, the claimants annual dependency would be P.s. 2,66,667/-. By multiplying the claimants annual dependeiycy of Rs. 2,66,667/with the tnultiplier of 13, the claimants would become entitle for Rs. 34,66,667/-. If compensation on other heads is also taken then the claimants would become entitle for a total sum of Rs. 35,00,000/(Approximately).

¶43

However,' the Tribunal, after considering the conipassionate \ appointment given to Rishi Kumar Sahu and without holding him also a dependent for the purpose of computation of compensation (inasmuch as, if he will be one of the dependent, then, in view of judgment of Sarla Verma (Supra), the deduction on account of personal expenses of deceased would be 1/4 only), has taken into consideration the income of deceased as Rs. 24,000/- only and thereby has assessed compensation ofRs. 25,10,000/- only, which, by no stretch of imagination can be said to be on higher side warranting interference ofthis court in the instant appeal.

12009 (6) SCC 121

For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal being devoid of

¶48

merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed summarily.

Sd/-

N.K. Agrawal Judge

Sahu

-3

Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ganga Bai Sahu and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ganga Bai Sahu 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

Belo Bai and Others Vs Bannin Bai and Others

Ku.Rajkumari Vs Chhannu Ram and Others

Bhagwat And Anr. Vs Narayan Prasad

Laxmaniya and Ors. Vs The Manager, Land Devp. Bank, Ambikapur and Ors.

Khilawan Vs Sarwashri Thanwar and Ors.

Rajendra Kumar Tandia Vs Nandlal @ Monu Paraste and Ors.