Allowed

Nandkishore Nashine and Another v. Rajkaran Nai @ Raju and Others

Chhattisgarh HC7 Feb 2014MA/1347/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a motor accident compensation appeal, the High Court modified an earlier tribunal award. The court held that despite lack of full income tax return, the deceased's positive income record warranted assessing monthly income at Rs.5,800 rather than neutral or lower figures. It corrected the multiplier from 8 to 17, increased conventional compensation, and ordered additional interest.

What did the court decide?

Award modified; total compensation enhanced to Rs.6,66,600; additional Rs.1,77,200 granted with interest at 9% p.a.

Nandkishore Nashine and Another Vs Rajkaran Nai @… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

(

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT

¶4

BILASPUR vl.slon Beaflfe MISC.APPEAL NO'. OF 2004 1

¶5

Appellants Nandkishore Nashine S/o (?laimants / ^y Gaurishankar ^ Nashine, Aged about 62 years, Occupation Ex serviceman Lecturer. Smt. Suman Nashine W/d Nandkishore Nashine aged about 52 years Both R/o Tatapara Chawk, Bilaspur P.S., Tah. & Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

RESPONDENTS Rajkaran Nai @ Raju S/o' non-applicants Mangilal, Permanent R/o| Village Dongergarh P.S.| Dongergarh, Distt. Bikanei^ Presently R/oj (Rajasthan), Kamal Associate Company; Chirchirda More Bilaspur Distt.| Bilaspur (C.G.) 2.,. Shiv Kumar Agrawal S/o /^ MulchandAgrawal,Agedabout 39 years, Occupation Proprietor Kamal Associate Company, R/o Chirchirda More, Parsada, P.S. Chakarbhata, Tahsil Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur. (C.G.) 3, The Oriental Insurance Company Bilaspur, Through Braneh Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Iri front of High Court, Bilaspijir i (C.G.)

¶8

¶9

MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE^ACT.1988

¶10

•^ X"

¶11

¶12

HIGH CQURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶13

SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker

¶14

M.A.No.1347 of 2004

¶15

Appellants claimants

¶16

Nandkishore Nashine and another

¶17

VERSUS

¶18

Respondents

¶19

Rajkaran Nai @ Raju and others

¶20

non-applicants

¶21

Present:

¶22

Shri Dashrath Prajapati, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No.1 & 2.

¶23

Shri A.K. Athaley, counsel for respondent No. 3.

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(7.2.2014)

¶26

This appeal filed by the claimants arises out of the award dated 9.9.2004 passed by 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (in short "the Tribunal") in Claim Case No.25/04 awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.4,89,400/- in favour of the claimants for the death of their son Priyraj Nashine @ Shriraj.

¶27

Facts of the case are that on 4.9.2003 when deceased Priyraj Nashine @ Shriraj, aged about 28 years, was on his motorcycle along with one Bablu @ Ravikant Kashyap, his vehicle was dashed by a dumper bearing registration No.C.G.-10/A-4059, as a result of which both Priyraj Nashine and Bablu died instantaneously.

¶28

A claim case was filed by the claimants, who are father and mother of the deceased, claiming compensation of Rs.1,17,35,000/-. It has been pleaded in the claim petition that at the time of death, the deceased was 28 yearspf age, was unmarried and owner of two jeeps, which he used to.run on hire and thereby getting Rs.30,000/- per month.

¶29

However, learned Tribunal by assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,800/-, after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal and living expenses and applying the multiplier of 8, by the impugned

¶30

2- -

¶31

¶32

award has granted a total compensation of Rs.4,89,400/- in favour of the appellants/claimants.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,800/-. He submits that though as per documents pertaining to income tax, annual income ofthe deceased appears to be Rs.69,200/- but income tax return of the last financial year could not be submitted on account of death of the deceased. He further submits that the Tribunalhas also committed an illegality in applying the multiplier of 8 whereas in the present case the multiplier of 17 will be applicable. Lastly, it is submitted that the amount awarded towards conventional heads i.e. Rs.50,000/- is also on the lower side and needs to be suitably enhanced.

¶34

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.S/lnsurance Company submits that the Tribunal hais awarded a just compensation to the claimants by rightly assessing the monthly income of the deceased on the basis of his income tax return and as such, the award impugned is not required to be interfered with.

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶36

From the record it appears that monthly income of the deceased was rightly assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.5,800/- i.e. Rs.69,600/- p.a. Though the claimants have claimed that monthly income of the deceased was Rs.30,000/-, but no such evidence could be brought on record by them to substantiate it.

¶37

So far as deduction towards personal and living expenses is concerned, it is not in dispute that the deceased was bachelor and as such, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the matters of Sar/a Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, 50% is to be deducted from the annual income of- the deceased towards his personal and living expenses. After such deduction, the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs.34,800/-.

¶38

As regards application of multiplier, considering the age of the

¶39

¶40

¶41

deceased, which was 28 years and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matters of Amrit Bhanu Shali and others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, (2012) 11 SCC 738 and M. Mansoor and another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2013 AIR SCW 6497, wherein it has been held that selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of age of the dependents, the multiplier applicable in the present case is 17 and not 8 as has been done by the Tribunal considering the age of the dependents. As such, after applying this multiplier, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.5,91,600/-.

¶42

So far as amount awarded towards conventional heads is concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case the same also deserves to be enhanced. Accordingly, this amount is enhanced to Rs.75,000/- from Rs.50,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 12. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.6,66,600/-. Since the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.4,89,400/-, the appellants/claimants are now entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,77.200/-. This additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.

¶43

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the award impugned is modified to the aforesaid extent. _^

¶44

¶45

Sd/PritinkerDiwaker Judge

¶46

[<)

Nandkishore Nashine and Another v. Rajkaran Nai @ Raju and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandkishore Nashine and Another v. Rajkaran Nai @ Raju 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

Avinash Singhal Vs Bhuneshwari Chandrakar and Others

Mohammd Ahamad Khan Vs Dharmchand and Anr.

Ramkrishna Singh Vs State Bank of India and Ors.

Bise Lal Vs State

Kisun Satnami Vs State

Stephan @ Tephan Khalkho Vs the State of C.G.