Appeal allowed in part. High Court modified compensation under Motor Vehicles Act from Rs. 10,47,000 to Rs. 12,84,000 by revising income assessment, future prospects, and conventional heads of loss.
Impugned award modified; compensation enhanced to Rs. 12,84,000 with interest at 6% p.a.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MAC No. 1255 of 2015
---Appellants
VERSUS
----Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, Advocate
( proceedings through Video Conferencing)
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order on Board
06/08/2021
2
Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 in part and awarded total sum of Rs. 10,47,000/- as compensation in a fatal accident case and fastened liability upon the non-applicants, owner, driver and insurer jointly and severally.
3
not work for all days of a month and whenever he worked he was being paid Rs. 150/- per day as wages and Rs. 50/- as daily allowance.
4
support of their claim with respect to income and accident. Respondent 1/ non-applicant 1 examined D.V. Ramanna, Manager of the Company of hyva truck as witness NAW-1-1. This witness in his evidence has stated that deceased was working as khalasi in the company prior to one and a half year of accident and earning Rs. 7,500/- per month. He submits that he is not aware with regard to his actual income. In cross-examination, this witness stated that he has not brought any record showing the employment of deceased and his income. In view of the aforementioned evidence available on record, it is apparent that the appellants failed to prove the income pleaded by placing reliable and admissible piece of evidence but from the pleadings and evidence brought on record, particularly, in view of evidence of witness D.V. Ramanna, NAW-11, his employment as khalasi is proved. The income assessed by learned Claims Tribunal as Rs. 4,000/- per month would be an income of an ordinary manual labour working in rural area whereas deceased in this case has been shown to be working as khalasi in a hyva truck and was accepted by the owner of the company of truck with respect to his employment.
5
vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . In view of the above, the addition towards future prospects in the established income would be 40% and not 50% as added by learned Claims Tribunal. The deduction of 1/4th towards personal and living expenses has been correctly applied as also the multiplier of 18 in view of the rulings of Supreme Court in the case of S arla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 75,000/towards other conventional heads which is in the opinion of this Court on lower side in view of the rulings of Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130.
6
of deceased, is entitled for Rs. 40,000/- towards parental consortium. Appellants-claimants are further entitled for Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate; Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses.
Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge
Pawan
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal required recalculation based on the deceased's actual income and future prospects?
Whether the addition towards future prospects should be 40% instead of 50% as per Supreme Court rulings?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay SethiApplied¶36
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 · Who else cites this
S arla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr.Applied¶36
S arla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 · Who else cites this
Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and othersRelied on¶36
Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others (2018) 18 SCC 130 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Asha Muni W/o late Suman Kumar Kujur
Saniyaro Bai W/o late Dhadhu Ram
Devlal Kujur S/o late Dhadhu Ram
Guddu S/o late Suman Kumar Kujur
M/s K. Seshgiri Rao & Company
Ram Sunder Rajak
Parth Prateem Sahu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
