Partly allowed

Amit Kumar v. Prakash Chandra

Chhattisgarh HC11 Oct 2023MAC/1089/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partially allowed an appeal against an award where the Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,00,000 compensation. The Court enhanced the loss of earning capacity multiplier to 18 based on Supreme Court jurisprudence, increasing total compensation to Rs. 7,49,800 while maintaining the Tribunal's assessment of functional disability percentage.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation awarded totaling Rs. 7,49,800; balance of Rs. 3,49,800 to be deposited within 60 days with interest at 6%.

Amit Kumar Vs Prakash Chandra — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 1089 of 2018

¶4

1 - Amit Kumar S/o Kush Kumar Sahu (Age-15) Aged About 39 Years Presently Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village- Rasouta TehsilJanjgir District- Bilaspur (Now District- Janjgir-Champa), Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 - Prakash Chandra S/o Ishwar Singh Chabra Shankar Nagar Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, M.P. Now Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2 - Charan Singh S/o Chandsingh Sardar Aged About 65 Years R/o Ravishankar Shukla Nagar Raipur Police Station Amanka, Raipur Tehsil And District- Raipur (M.P.) Now Chhattisgarh.,

¶9

3-National Insurane Company Ltd. Through- Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Bilaspur Tehsil And DistrictBiladpur,(M.P.), Now Chhattisgarh.,

¶10

4-Shiv Kumar Singh S/o B.S. Thakur Shiv Bus Services And Proprietor Of Shiv Travels, R/o Kotmi Sunar, Tehsil Janjgir, DistrictBilaspur (M.P.), Now Chhattisgarh.

¶11

5-Bhagwat Prasad S/o Shivrakhanlal Sahu R/o Juna Bilaspur Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, (M.P.), Now Chhattisgarh.

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For the Appellant : Ms. Khushboo Dua, Advocate
For R-3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate
________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board

¶14

11.10.2023

¶15

1. Challenge in this appeal is to an award dated 21.11.2017 passed in Claim Case No.509/2015 by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG). By the impugned award, the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to the appellant/claimant on account of injury sustained by him in an accident that took place on 07.04.1992.

¶16

1. The brief facts of the case is that according to said accident his hand was amputated and he suffered 80% permanent disability. The claim application was resisted by respondents. At the time of accident, the appellant/claimant was 15 years of age. Learned tribunal has considered his yearly income to Rs.30,000/- and

¶17

¶18

assessed the loss of earning capacity to the tune of 80% and applied the multiplier of 15 and awarded Rs.3,60,000/- as loss of income; Rs.20,000/- was awarded for pain and suffering; Rs.15,000/- was awarded towards nutritional diet and Rs.5,000/towards transportation expenses and Rs.4,00,000/- was awarded along with 7.5% interest from the date of claim application i.e. 23.06.1992 till its realization except from the period 29.06.2012 to 17.02.2016.

¶19

1. Ms. Dua, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the compensation awarded is on the lower side and the multiplier is wrongly applied and the compensation awarded on other heads is also on the lower side, therefore, compensation may be suitably enhanced.

¶20

1. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3/ insurance company submits that the learned tribunal has rightly assessed the income of deceased and submits that looking to the evidence on record, the compensation has rightly been awarded and does not require any interference by this Court.

¶21

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record.

¶22

1. Learned Tribunal assessed annual being Rs.30,000/-. Taken accordingly. Tribunal has not considered the future prospect of the injured which in the considered opinion of this Court should be 40%. Holding so, the amount on this head is quantified at Rs. 42,000/-. The tribunal has assessed the loss of functional disability to the extent of 80% which being just and proper is hereby maintained. In this case, the loss of functional disability comes to Rs.33,600/-. Held thus. Taking the age of the appellant/claimant at

¶23

¶24

the relevant time as 15 years, multiplier of 15 was applied by the Tribunal, which not being proper needs to be modified to 18 in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors; (2009) 6 SCC 121. Applying the said multiplier of 18 the total compensation comes to Rs.6,04,800/-. This apart, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards mental agony pain and suffering; Rs.15,000/- for the attendant; and Rs.5000/- for transport. Apart from this, Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards nutritional diet and if this amount is added the total compensation amount for which the appellant is entitled comes to Rs.7,49,800/-. The amount awarded by the Tribunal i.e. Rs.4,00,000/- needs to be subtracted, and doing so the enhanced amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,49,800/Order accordingly. Let this amount be deposited within a period of 60 days from today with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of claim application till actual payment except for a period from 29.06.2012 to 17.02.2016.

¶25

Appeal is thus partly allowed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶28

Judge

¶29

Parul

Amit Kumar v. Prakash Chandra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar v. Prakash Chandra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Vidya Sahu Vs Anil Kumar Yadav

Rabul Barik Vs Smt. Shanti Devi

Purushottam Jaltare Vs Smt. Ramayan Bai

Nohar Lal Sahu Vs Pradeep Thakare

Kalpna Singh Vs Shrawan Kumar Gupta

Divisional Manager, The Oriental General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Jainibai