Allowed

Manku Ram Kanwar v. Budhdeshwar Shrivastava and Others

Chhattisgarh HC14 Nov 2017MAC/705/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal sought enhancement of compensation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The High Court found the assessed income of Rs. 3,750/month too low for a 2007 accident and revised it to Rs. 4,500/month. Calculating loss of earning capacity at 46%, the Court enhanced the total award to Rs. 3,06,240.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 2,60,000 to Rs. 3,06,240 with interest.

Manku Ram Kanwar Vs Budhdeshwar Shrivastava and… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 705 of 2010

¶4

Manku Ram Kanwar S/o Mayaram, R/o Rampur Basti, Korba, Teh. And Distt. Korba through his next friend Smt. Nohar Bai Kanwar, aged about 48 years, W/o Mankuram Kanwar, R/o Purani Basti Korba (CG).

¶5

---- Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Budheshwar Shrivastava, aged about 50 years S/o late Shri Lalji Shrivastava, Purani Basti, Korba, Present address Navin Trading company in front of Shiv Mandir, Power House Road, Korba (CG).

¶8

Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, aged about 43 years, S/o late Shri Sitaram Agrawal, Address Navin Trading company in front of Shiv Mandir, Power House Road, Korba (CG).

¶9

United India Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager, RB Traders, Ist Floor, Stadium Marg, Transport Nagar, Korba (CG).

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

For Appellant	: Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate.
For respondents No.1	: Shri Shiv Kumar Shrivastava.
For respondents No.3	: Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate.

¶12

SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Judgment on Board

¶13

14/11/2017

¶14

This is claimant's appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 14.12.2009 passed by the IInd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba, (in short, the Tribunal) in Claim Case No.01/2008. Vide the impugned award, the Tribunal in an injury case has awarded compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- along with interest @ 9 percent per annum from the date of application.

¶15

The accident, date of accident, the resultant injury sustained by the claimant due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the offending

¶16

¶17

vehicle was insured with the respondent No.3.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that income of Rs.3750/which has been assessed by the Tribunal for quantification of compensation is on the lower side. According to him, the accident is of the year, 2007 when the minimum income which the injured would have earned was around Rs.150-200 per day. According to him even an unskilled labourer during the said period would be earning more than Rs.150-200 a day which makes the monthly wages to be around Rs.4500-6000/- per month and therefore, Rs.3750/- as accepted by the Tribunal for quantification of compensation deserves to be enhanced.

¶19

Counsel appearing for the respondent-insurance company however opposes the appeal and submits that the finding of the Tribunal seems to be fair and reasonable and there is no scope of enhancement and thus, prayed for the rejection of the Appeal.

¶20

Having considered the rival contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, considering the date of accident to be February, 2007, the minimum income which an unskilled labour would had been earning between Rs.150-200 a day that makes it for Rs.4500-6000 per month. For the purpose of quantification of compensation, this court assesses the income of the claimant at Rs.4500/- per month.

¶21

If Rs.4500/- is taken as monthly income of the deceased, the yearly income would come to Rs.54,000/-. If the said amount is multiplied by applying multiplier of 11, the amount would reach to Rs.5,94,000/-, of

¶22

¶23

which assessing 46 percent to be the disability part, the loss of earning capacity in the instant case would comes to Rs.2,73,240/-. It is ordered accordingly. The claimant shall also be entitled for amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses of Rs.23,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, making total amount of compensation at Rs.3,06,240/- instead of Rs.2,60,000/- as assessed by the Tribunal.

¶24

The enhanced amount of compensation shall also carry interest at the same rate as has been ordered by the Tribunal. Remaining part of the award shall remain intact.

¶25

Thus, the appeal stands allowed and disposed of.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

inder

Manku Ram Kanwar v. Budhdeshwar Shrivastava and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manku Ram Kanwar v. Budhdeshwar Shrivastava and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Peela Singh and Anr. Vs Dumendra @ Domendra and Anr.

Dharam Singh Vs Anupam Das and Others

Ratnibai and Others Vs Tulsiram and Others

Kanshi Ram Sahu Vs Brijlal Vishvakarma and Others

Durga Prasad Gupta Vs Dhanmatiya Bai and Others

Durga Prasad Gupta Vs Kunti Bai and Others