Partly allowed

Smt. Indiya Bai v. Gajendra Kumar

Chhattisgarh HC10 Aug 2023MAC/1079/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 4,24,000 to Rs. 11,77,200 by revising the deceased's income assessment, adding future prospects, and adjusting conventional damages head amounts based on the Pranay Sethi judgment.

What did the court decide?

Award modified to Rs. 11,77,200 plus 6% interest from the date of filing till realization.

Smt. Indiya Bai Vs Gajendra Kumar — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 1079 of 2015

¶5

Smt. Indiya Bai Wd/o Late Harik Lal Netam, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village- Guhannala, , Police Station- Dugli, Tahsil- Nagri, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh,

¶6

Nomesh Kumar, S/o Late Harik Lal, Aged About 11 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Indiya Bai, R/o VillageGuhannala, , Police Station- Dugli, Tahsil- Nagri, District- Dhamtari Chhattisgarh,

¶7

Yogesh Kumar, S/o Late Harik Lal, Aged About 9 Years, Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Indiya Bai, R/o VillageGuhannala, , Police Station- Dugli, Tahsil- Nagri, District- Dhamtari Chhattisgarh,

¶8

Aneshwar Kumar, S/o Late Harik Lal, Aged About 7 Years, Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Indiya Bai, R/o VillageGuhannala, , Police Station- Dugli, Tahsil- Nagri, District- Dhamtari Chhattisgarh,

¶9

Jage Singh, S/o Naval Singh Netam, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village- Guhannala, , Police Station- Dugli, Tahsil- Nagri, DistrictDhamtari Chhattisgarh,

¶10

Smt. Satrupin Bai, W/o Jage Singh, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Village- Guhannala, , Police Station- Dugli, Tahsil- Nagri, DistrictDhamtari, Chhattisgarh,

¶11

---- Appellants/Claimants

¶12

Versus

¶13

Gajendra Kumar, S/o Neelkanth Sahu, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village- Bagdehi, Tahsil- Kurud, District- Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, ……….Driver Of Alleged Motorcycle Bearing Registration C.G. 04Kt- 4579,

¶14

Birbal Ram Sahu, S/o Nandkumar Sahu, R/o Village- Korra, Police Station Keregaon, Tahsil- Nagri, District- Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, ………….Owner Of Alleged Motor Cycle Bearing Registration C.G. 04/ Kt- 4579,

¶15

I.C.I.C.I Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Through-

¶16

¶17

Branch Manager, Branch OfÏce, Vanijya Bhawan, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh………... Insurer Of Alleged Motor Cycle Bearing Registration C.C. 04- Kt- 4579,

¶18

---- Respondents

¶19

___________________________ For Appellant/Claimant	__________________________________ : Shri Anil Gulati, Advocate
For Respondent No.3	: Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

¶21

Order On Board

¶22

10/08/2023

¶23

The appellant/claimants filed this appeal being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 19.02.2015 passed by the Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari, Chattisgarh (in short ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.95/2014, whereby the Tribunal has granted award of Rs.4,24,000/- in favour of the claimants. Thus, this appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the award amount.

¶24

As per the claim petition, on 08.04.2014 Harik Lal Netam was going as a pedestrian and when he reached nearby Sankra at that time respondent No.1 drove his motorcycle bearing registration No.CG 4-KT-4579 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed Harik Lal Netam, on account of which he fell down and received multiple injuries and he was hospitalized at Primary Health Centre, Nagri and thereafter, he was referred to Dhamtari for better treatment.

¶25

¶26

On 08.04.2014 he died due to injuries received by him in the said accident. Claimants i.e. legal heirs of the deceased filed application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal for compensation. It is pleaded by them that at the time of accident, deceased as aged about 32 years and he used to earn Rs.150 per day by performing the work of labour and sought compensation of Rs.13,50,000/-.

¶27

Respondent No.1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively in their written statement have pleaded that deceased himself was negligent at the time of accident and the driver herein had possessed valid and effective driving license and the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, so the liability ought to have been fastened upon the insurer i.e. Insurance Company to indemnify the award.

¶28

Respondent No.3/Insurance Company in its written statement pleaded that the vehicle was plying against the terms and condition of the policy, therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation.

¶29

On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties, the Tribunal passed an award of Rs.4,24,000/- in favour of the claimants. Hence, this appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the compensation amount.

¶30

¶31

Learned Counsel appearing for appellants/claimants submits that the learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- on notional basis. As the accident occurred in the year 2014, therefore, the monthly income of the deceased on notional basis would be Rs.4,500/-. He further submits that while assessing the compensation, no amount has been added towards future prospects of the deceased. As the deceased was aged about 32 years old, 40% of the amount should be added on the established income of the deceased and for the same, reliance has been placed on law laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Further, on the other conventional heads also, meager amount has been granted which should be suitably enhanced in view of the above mentioned law.

¶32

I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including the evidence adduced by the parties minutely.

¶33

It is not in dispute that the alleged accident occurred in the year 2014 and as per the pleadings made by the claimants, deceased was earning Rs.150 per day as labourer. Considering the above facts, it would be appropriate to considered monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/-. The Tribunal has not added any amount towards future prospects of the deceased. As the deceased was 32

¶34

¶35

years of age, 40% amount of his established income should be added towards his future prospects. On adding the same, monthly income would come to Rs.6,300/- (4,500 + 1,800). The Tribunal has deducted 1/3 amount from his income for his personal expenses. As there are six claimants, ¼ amount should be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and on deducting the same, monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.4,725/- (6,300 - 1575). Yearly income of the deceased would come to Rs.56,700/(4,725 x 12). Upon using multiplier of 16, the amount would comes to Rs.9,07,200/-.

¶36

On the other conventional heads, the Tribunal has granted Rs.5000/- on the head of funeral expenses, Rs.5000/- for loss of estate and Rs.30,000/- for loss of consortium to the claimants which seems to be on lower side. Considering the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs.15,000/- is awarded for funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.40,000 for loss of consortium to each of the claimants i.e. Rs.2,40,000/- (40,000 x6). Ordered accordingly.

¶37

On the basis of above discussion, now the appellant/claimants are entitled to get total compensation of Rs.11,77,200/- (9,07,200 + 15,000 + 15,000 +2,40,000) instead of Rs.4,24,000/- along with interest of 6% per annum from the date of submission of the claim petition before the Tribunal till realisation. Ordered accordingly.

¶38

¶39

Consequently, the instant appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. Rest of

¶40

the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

¶43

Prakash

Smt. Indiya Bai v. Gajendra Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Indiya Bai v. Gajendra Kumar

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

Vijay Kumar Wadhvani Vs Ramesh Kumar Khanna

Shankar Satpathi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sunil Kumar Khairwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Ku. Archana And Ors.

Ku. Archana and Ors. Vs Basant Gupta and Anr.

Smt. Niharika Ramteke Vs Dashrath Singh Rajput