Partly allowed

Smt.Chhabil Bai and Others v. Rajesh Dwivedi and Others

Chhattisgarh HC3 Apr 2013MAC/71/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants sought enhancement of compensation for a motor accident death. The Bench applied the 18-multiplier from Sarla Verma instead of the Tribunal's 12-multiplier, awarding Rs. 2,20,000 and quantifying interest on the enhance amount.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,20,000; interest on enhanced sum quantified at Rs. 8,000; total payable Rs. 80,000.

Smt.Chhabil Bai and Others Vs Rajesh Dwivedi and… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2013)

¶1

-'/7

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

SingSe Bench :- Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. J

IVI.A.fC)No.71of2006

,:-^-

Appellants Ciaimants	1. Smt. Chhabil Bai, aged about 25 years, Wd/o Late Pancham Marar.
	2. Smt. Ratni Bai, aged about 55 years Wd/o late Devaluram Marar.
	3. Kashiram, S/o Late pancham Mararaged about6years.
	4. Kavish Kumar, S/o Late Pancham Marar, aged about 4 years. No.3 and 4 minors through natural guardian mother appellant No.1 Chhabil Bai Wd/o Late Panchamram Marar, A!l resident of viliage Bhawsa, Post Bhawsa, Tahsil & Dist. Manpur, District Rajnandgaon Versys
Respondents	1; Rajesh Dwivedi, S/o Nawai Kishore Owivedi, aged 30 years, R/o Vandepo Para Manpur
	2. Smt Sunita Jadhwani W/o Shankar Jadhwani R/o H.G. Road, Raipur (C.G.)
	3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. City Branch Raipur, through Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office Kamtiline Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶8

EVIISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT

¶9

Appearance: Mr. Goutam Khetrapal and Mr. Vijay Sahu, counsel for the appellants. Mr. H.B. Agrawai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for respondent No. 3.

¶10

¶11

Order

¶12

(Passed on 03.04.2013)

¶13

The appellants have filed this appea! for enhancement of compensationawarded in Ciaim Case No. 136/2004 by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) vide award dated 04.05.2005.

¶14

The appeilants/claimants, unfortunate widow, mother and minor children of deceased Panchamram filed a claim petition under Sectjon 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 18,25,400/- for his death in the motor accident which took piace on 02.06.2004, when his bicycle was dashed by the offending vehicle, Tipper bearing registration No. CG04-ZC-6598 on account of rash and negligent driving of the said Tipper by respondent No. 1.

¶15

¶16

The claimants pleaded that the deceased was labourer and used toearn Rs. 2,550/- per month. The Tribunal, on close scrutiny of the evidence led before it, held that it was not established by the appeilants/claimants that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,550/per month. The Tribunal, therefore, taking into consideration the fact that deceased was a iabourer in viliage and further considering the prevalent rate in village assessed per day income of the deceased as Rs. 50/- and Rs.1500/- per month. After deducting 1/3 towards the personal expenses of the deceased from the said amount, the dependency of the appeliants was worked out to Rs.1,000/- per month and Rs.12,000/- per annum.

;.^^

^<br>

By applying multiplier of 12 to the said dependency of Rs. 12,000/-, the compensation, was worked out to Rs. 1 ,44,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs. 4,000/- under other heads, the total amount of compensation was worked out to Rs. 1,48,000/. The Tribunal, thus awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,48,000/as compensation to the appellants/claimants for th'e death of deceased Panchamram in the motor accident on 02.06.2004. The Tribunai also awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fjling ofthe claim petition till the date of actual payment. Mr. Goutam Khetrapal and Mr. Vijay Sahu, learned counseE appearing on behalf of the appellants argued that the Tribunat erred in applying multiplier of 12 and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,48,000/- onty. He prayed for suitable enhancement in thecompensation awarded by the Tribunal. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the insurance company/respondent No. 3 apposed these arguments and supported the award passed by the Tribunaj.

¶21

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the claim case.

¶22

In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal should be just^and proper^{compensationinthefactsandcircumstancesof} the case. It shouid neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza.

.4.

After going through the record and considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier of 12 selected by the Tribunal, in my, opinion is not appropriate in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein multiplier of 18 was prescribed for the age group between 21-25 years. In the present case, the age of the deceased determined by the Tribunal was 25 years at the time of his death, therefore, muitiplier of 18 is an appropriate.

¶29

By muttiplying the annua! dependency of Rs.12,000/- with the multiplier of 18, the compensation works out to Rs; 2,16,000/-. The appellants/claimants have already been awarded Rs.2,000/towards funerat expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Thus, the claimants become entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Panchamram in the motor accident. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 1,48,000/-. By deducing Rs. 1,48,000/- from Rs. 2,20,000/- the difference comes to Rs. 72,000/-, which the appellants/claimants are entitled to receive as amount of enhanced compensation for the death of deceased Panchamram in the motor accident.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that with a view to avoid any possibie dispute between the parties about the period^{forwhichtheclaimantsareentitledtoreceiveintereston} the enhanced amount of compensation, the amount of interest on

¶31

¶32

the enhanced amount of compensation may be quantified in this appeal itself.

Considering all the relevant factors, l quantify the amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.72,000/at Rs.8,000/-.

¶39

Therefore, the appeliants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 80,000/more (Rs. 72.000/as the enhanced amount of compensation and Rs. 8,000/- as the amount of quantified interest on the enhanced amount) which they shall receive from the Driver and Owner of the offending vehicle.

¶40

For the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by the appeltants /daimants for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part.^{ThecompensationofRs.1} ,48,000/-^{awardedbytheTribunal} is enhanced to Rs.2,20,000/- with further quantified amount of interest of Rs.8,000/- 6n the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.2,20,000/-.

¶41

Respondent No.1 and 2, driver andowner respectiveiy, is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs. 80,000/(Rs.72,000/towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.8,000/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation) before the concerning CIaims Tribunal.

¶42

No order as to costs.

¶43

Sd/R.N. Chandrakar Judge

Smt.Chhabil Bai and Others v. Rajesh Dwivedi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Chhabil Bai and Others v. Rajesh Dwivedi 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

Adheer Bairaghi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Laxmi Bai Uike Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohan Lal Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Sahu Vs the State of C.G.

Santosh Sahu Vs the State of M.P.

Digamram Vs the State of M.P.