Partly allowed

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

Chhattisgarh HC4 Apr 2014MAC/716/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellant's appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to enhance an award for motor accident death. The court corrected errors in income assessment, multiplier application, and conventional heads, modifying the total award to Rs. 10,67,189.

What did the court decide?

Award enhanced to Rs. 10,67,189 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of application; original award amount deducted.

Smt.Chamarin Bai and Ors. Vs Raju Kumar Yadav and… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE:CHHATTISGARH :BIIASPUR

¶2

M.A. (C) N0 : ^/U OF 2008 c n "i ;--. 11'^BC^Wjd U^^IIM

¶3

APPELIANTS 1.	Smt Chamarin Bai
APPLIC2WTS	aged 35 yrs, wd/o Shri Sadhram Satnami
2.	Ku. Shail Satnami aged 14 yrs, d/o Shri Sadhram Satnami
3.	Ku. Heera Satnami aged 12 yrs, d/o Shri Sadhram Satnami
	Dileshwar Satnami aged 10 yrs s/o Shri Sadhram.Satnami Ku Anju Satnami aged 6 yrs d/o Shri Sadhram Satnami no 2 to 5 minors represented through mother <br>Smt. Sukhamati Bai aged 75 yrs, w/o Dhansai Satnami
	all : r/o Marimai Road, Tala-para : Bilaspur Distt-Bilaspur CG
- VERSUS	-
RESPONDENTS NON-APPLIC2WTS 1	. Raju Kumar Yadav aged 34 yrs s/o Shri Buddhu Kumar Yadav
	Satyendra Singh @ Raju s/o Shri Triloki Singh M/s Jagdish Medical Store Main Road-Pamgarh Distt : Janjgir-Champa

¶4

_^^^^-

¶5

;

¶6

A— 3. The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through : The Divisional Manager,

¶7

The New India Insurance Company Ltd :DivisionalOffice, Near Bus-Stand Bilaspur

¶8

APPEAI. FOR ENHANCEMENT OF AWARD UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988

¶9

¶10

¶11

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶12

SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker

¶13

M.A.fONo. 716/2008

¶14

APPELLANTS/ CLAIMANTS

¶15

Smt. Chamarin Bai and others

¶16

VERSUS

¶17

RESPONDENTS

¶18

Raju Kumar Yadav and others

¶19

r^.

¶20

Shri Anurag Dayat Shrivastava counset for the appellants. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Sourabh Sharma counsel for respondent No.3.

O RD E R

(04.04.2014)

!'^

This appeal arises out of the award dated 20.12.2007 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the "Tribunal") Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 152/2006 awarding compensation of Rs. 11,60,076 in favour of the claimants, 06 in number, who are widow, four minor children and mother of the deceased.

¶25

Facts of the case in brief are that on 12.02.2006 when the deceased namely Sadhram Satnami aged about 40 years at the relevant time was riding his motorcycle, it was dashed by the offending vehicle i.e. minibus bearing registration No. CG -11ZA/0162 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which he sustained number of injuries on his body and succumbed to the same on the way to hospital. The offending vehicte. was duly insured with respondent No.3 -

¶26

,^^i,M^^SI^^^sg?:^s~:^-%^''-' --'

¶27

i v:'>"-<-."\ ':? 9 tl\

¶28

-2--

¶29

Insurance Company.

¶30

Claim case was filed by the appellants/claimants as described above, claiming compensation of Rs. 58, 00,000 inter alia pleading that at the relevant time the deceased was aged about 40 years, he was working as driller in SECL having monthly income of Rs. 12,406, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the offending vehicle and therefore, suitable compensation may be awarded to them.

¶31

Respondent No.S/lnsurance Company contested the claim of the claimants taking a plea that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself and there was breach of insurance policy also. However, the Tribunal by the impugned award has awarded a compensation of Rs. 11, 60, 076 in favour of the claimants with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

¶32

Counsel for the appellants/claimants submits as under:

¶33

(i) That the Tribunal has erred in law in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 8,942 which in fact is Rs. 12,406. It has also committed an error in deducting certain allowances which the deceased was getting. That the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting (ii) 1/3 of the income for personal and living expenses of the deceased which looking to the number of dependants (i.e. 'six) should have been 1/4 .

¶34

That the Tribunal has again committed an error in not (ii) awarding any amount for the future prospects.

iiiKSi:iiSi8!S9iS

-a-

(iii) That the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably.

¶39

(iv) Counsel for the appellants however fairly submits that considering the age of the deceased at the relevant time i.e. 40 years, applicable multiplier should be of 15 but the Tribunal has wrongly applied that of 16 which is not in accord with the decision of Apex Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121.

¶40

On the other hand counsel for respondent No.3 supports the award impugned and submits that the compensation awarded to the claimants is just and reasonable.

¶41

k— 7.

¶42

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

¶43

From the pleadings and evidence on record it is clear that the deceased was working as drilter in the SECL having monthly income of Rs. 12,406. Tribunal has wrongly taken monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 8,942 though there is a settled^legal position that except income tax no other deduction can be made. Thus taking the mpnthly income of the deceased as Rs. 12,406 his annual income comes to Rs. 1, 48, 872. Record goes to show that the Tribunal has not considered the future prospects of the deceased. In the facts and circumstances of the case if 30% future prospects of the deceased is taken into consideration, the amount

which he could have earned in case of his being alive comes to Rs. 44,662 per annum leading to his annual income to Rs. 1,93,534. Looking to the number of claimants, 1/4th of his income needs to be deducted for his personal and living expenses and if that is done the amount being contributed to the dependants comes to Rs. 1, 45,151 per annum. Since at the time of death, the deceased was aged about 40 years, multiplier of 15 is required to be applied in stead of 16 as has been done by the Tribunal and applying the multiplier of 15 the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 21,77, 265.

¶49

Under conventional heads such as loss of consortium, love and affection, funeral expensesand loss of assets the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,000, 5,000, 3,000 and 2,500 respectively totaling to Rs. 15,500 which according to the considered opinion ofthis Court appears to be highly unreasonable and the same is hereby enhanced to a lump sum of Rs. 50,000. Thus the total compensation for which the appellants/claimants are entitled comes to Rs. 22, 27,265. Since the Tribunal has already paid compensation of Rs. 11,60,076 the same is required to be deducted and if this deduction is made, the enhanced compensation comes to Rs. 10,67,189. This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application.

¶50

Appeal is thus partly attowed and award stands modified as above.

¶51

Sd/Pritinker Diwakar Judge

¶52

¶53

R''-1'

¶54

11^'H

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Chamarin Bai and Ors. v. Raju Kumar Yadav 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.Harkanta Bai Vs Yogesh Rahangdale and Others

Jalan Singh Kashyap Vs Ashok Kumar Rajput and Ors.