Partly allowed

Jalan Singh Kashyap v. Ashok Kumar Rajput and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC4 Apr 2014MAC/2/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The HC allowed the appeal in part, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court corrected the disability percentage to 50%, increased the annual loss of income calculation using a multiplier of 18 (based on Age 25), and enhanced conventional heads, resulting in a net enhancement of Rs. 1,72,251.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,72,251 awarded with interest at 6% per annum from the date of application.

Jalan Singh Kashyap Vs Ashok Kumar Rajput and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT

¶2

BILASPUR (C.G.)

¶3

M^A.fONO. ^- OF2012(D.B.)

¶4

APPELLANT Jalari Singh Kashyap S/o. Mangalsay CLAIMANT , aged about 25 years, Through Snit. Shridevi W/o. Jalan Singh aged about 23 years, (Wife, Next friend) R/o both are residence at Village Chachalgure, at present Mavalipader KodaBhata P.S. Darbha, para, District Bastar (C.G.).

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

RESPONDENTS : l^ Ashok.kum.ar Rajput S/o. Kishorilal NON-CLAIMANTS Rajput, R/o. Bazar para, Nangure, P.S. Parpa District Bastar (C.G.). (Driver of the vehicle) 2. Lakheshwar Kashyap S/o Late Sukta Kashyap Bazarpara, Nangure P.S. Parpa District Bastar (C.G.). (Owner of the Vehicle) </'3. The United Insurance Company Limited, Through:- Branch Manage, Anupama Chowk, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.)

¶7

MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 (2) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLEACT, 1988

¶8

HIGH COURT OF^HHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶9

SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker

M.A.(C)No. 02/2012

APPELLANT/ CLAIMANT

Jalan Singh Kashyap

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS/ Ashok Kumar Rajput and others NON-APPLICANTS

¶15

Shri Pravin Tulsiyan counsel for the appellant. None for respondents No.1,,& 2

¶16

Shri Dashrath Gupta couns'el for respondent No.3

¶17

¶18

ORDER (04.04.2014)

¶19

^This appeal arises out oftheaward dated 31.10.2011 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the "Tribunal") Bastar (Jagdalpur) in Claim Case No. 208/2010 awarding a compensation of Rs. 2,01,749 in favour of claimant with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

¶20

Facts of the case in brief are that on 28.11.2009 when injured/claimant had gone for urination after parking his motorcycle, he was dashed by the offending vehicle i.e. tractor bearing registration No. CG-17-G-3093 and trolley bearing registration No. CG-17-G-3094 as a result of which he suffered head injury and permanent disability to the extent of 50%. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2, driven by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.3 - Insurance Company.

¶21

¶22

Sh. !>5 S ^*.^?5-8^ S,-.. ^ 0

¶23

Claim case was filed by the appellant/claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 6,75,000 inter alia pleading that at the time of accident he was aged about 25 years, was working as mason and was earning Rs. 4,000 per month and therefore he may be awarded suitable compensation.

¶24

Respondent/lnsurance company contested the claim denying the claim of the claimant. However, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2,01,749 including Rs. 11,000 under conventional heads.

¶25

¶26

Counsel for the appellant/daimant submits that the coftpensation awarded by the Tribunal under all the heads is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. He submits that monthly income of the claimant was Rs. 4,000 but the Tribunal has wrongly taken it as Rs. 3000 per month. According to the counsel for the appellant/claimant the Tribunal has further committed an error in assessing the permanent disability of the claimant as 30% which In fact is 50% as is evident from Ex. A-1. Counsel for the appellant further submits that on account of the head injury, the appellant has lost his mental equilibrium and is unable to do anything. According to him, on account of mental disturbance the appellant could not even be examined in the Court and he filed the claim case through his wife Smt. Shridevi and it is she who was examined asAW-1 in the Tribunal to prove the case of claimant.

"tj "<,.'.^~^';'''''

On the other hand counsel for respondent No.S/lnsurance Company suppori:s the award impugned and submits that compensation awarded by the Tribunal isjust and reasonable.

¶32

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

¶33

The claimant has not filed anything on the basis of which it could be said that the monthly income ofthe claimant was Rs.4000 and in these circumstances the Tribunal has taken a correct view in determining his monthly income as Rs. 3000. However, the Tribunal does pot appear to be justified in taking the permanent disability of the appellant as 30% particularly when document of Ex. A-1 clearly shows the same to be 50%. Thus if the 50% disability is taken into account, the-annual loss of income comes to Rs. 18,000. Now as regards multiplier, looking to the age of the claimant i.e. 25 years at the relevant time and considering the decision ofApex Court in the matter of Sar/a Verma and others v. Delhi Transport (Smt.) Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121 it should be 18 whereas the Tribunal has wrongly applied that of 17. Thus if the multiplier of 18 is applied, the total loss of income comes to Rs. 3,24,000.

¶34

As regards conventional heads, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 11,000 which being on the lower side is hereby enhanced to a lump sum of Rs. 50,000. Thus the total awardable compensation in this case comes to Rs. 3,74,000.

Since the Tribunal has already awarded the compensation of Rs. 2,01,749, same is required to be deducted and doing so the enhanced compensation for which the appellant is entitled comes to Rs. 1,72,251 which would carry the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application.

¶39

In view of aforesaid modification in the award, the appeal is allowed in part.

¶40

Sd/Pritinker Diwaker

Jalan Singh Kashyap v. Ashok Kumar Rajput and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jalan Singh Kashyap v. Ashok Kumar Rajput 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

Smt.Asha Tiwari Vs Rajinder Pal Singh Bhatia

Sanju @ Sanjay Kumar Sahu Vs Gendu Gond and Others

Anand Roadways Vs Smt. Triveni Bai Kunjam and Ors.

Ku.Anamika Sharma and Ano. Vs Pavitra Singh Thakur and Ors.

Smt.Chamarin Bai and Ors. Vs Raju Kumar Yadav and Ors.

Smt.Harkanta Bai Vs Yogesh Rahangdale and Others