Partly allowed

Smt. Neeta v. Tannuram

Chhattisgarh HC4 Oct 2023MAC/1474/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld a Motor Accident Claim dispute between an insurance company and claimants grieving a deceased poultry farmer. The Court computed additional compensation by factoring in future prospects as mandated by Supreme Court precedents and modified the tribunal's award.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal award enhanced to Rs. 51,38,118 with interest; additional amount to be deposited by insurer, Rs. 7.5L invested in fixed deposits for minor claimants.

Smt. Neeta Vs Tannuram — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 207 of 2018

¶4

United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Divisional Manager Divisional- Officer, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Of Vehicle No. Cg-04 Hd -8017)

¶5

---- Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Smt. Neeta Wd/o Late Prashant Parate, Aged About 40 Years

¶8

1. Kinjal D/o D/o Late Prashant Parte, Aged About 16 Years

¶9

1. Ku. Tanisha, D/o D/o Late Prashant Parate, Aged About 15 Years 4) Ranish S/o S/o Late Prashant Parate Aged About 7 Years No. 2 to 4 Minor- Through Their Mother- Smt. Neeta, Wd/o Prashant Parate, (Respondent No. 1). No.1 to 4 R/o Block No. 5, E- 30, Medical College Doctors, Pandit Jawaharlal Neharu Residential, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

1. Tannuram S/o S/o A. R. Sahu R/o V. I. P. Road, Fundhar, P. S. Telibandha, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle No. Cg- 04hd-8017).(Non- Applicant No. 1).

¶11

1. Romesh Kumar S/o S/o Santosh Kumar Sahu R/o Gandhinagar, Murrabhatthi, Gudhiyari Raipur, (Near Hariom Kirana Store) P. S. Gudhiyari, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle No. Cg. 04hd- 8017).(Non- Applicant No. 2).

¶12

1. Smt. Pushpa Wd/o Harishchand Parate R/o Aparna Poultry Farm Deopuri, P. S. Tikrapara, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.(NonApplicant No. 4).

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

MAC No. 1474 of 2017

¶15

1. Smt. Neeta Wd/o Prashant Parate, Aged About 40 Years R/o Block No. 5, E 30, Medical College Doctors Pandit Jawahrlal Nehru Residential, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶16

1. Kinjal, D/o Late Prashant Parate, Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Neeta Parate, R/o Block No. 5, E 30, Medical College Doctors Pandit Jawahrlal Nehru Residential, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶17

1. Kumari Tanisha, D/o Prashant Parate, Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Neeta Parate, R/o Block No. 5, E 30, Medical College Doctors Pandit Jawahrlal Nehru Residential, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶18

1. Ranish, S/o Prashant Parate, Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Neeta Parate, R/o Block No. 5, E 30, Medical College Doctors Pandit Jawahrlal Nehru Residential, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶19

---- Appellants

¶20

Versus

¶21

1. Tannuram S/o A. R. Sahu, R/o V. I. P. Road, Fundahar, Thana Telibandha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶22

1. Romesh Kumar, S/o Santosh Kumar Sahu, R/o Gandhinagar, Murrbhatti, Gudhiyari, Raipur Near Hariom General Store, Thana

¶23

¶24

Gudhiyari, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶25

1. United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Kachahari Chowk Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶26

1. Smt. Pushpa Wd/o Harishchand Parate, R/o Aparna Poultry Farm, Devpuri, Thana Tikrapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶27

---- Respondents

¶28

Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Counsel for the Appellant in MAC No.207/2018 and for respondent No.3 in MAC No.1474/2017. Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4 in MAC No.207/2018 and for appellants in MAC No.1474/2017.

¶29

________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board

¶30

04.10.2023

¶31

1. Since both the appeals are arising out of common award they are being heard and decided by this common judgment. The parties are hereinafter referred to their status before the learned tribunal.

¶32

1. These appeals are arising out of award dated 09.10.2017 passed in Claim Case No.430/2016 by Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG). MAC No.207 of 2018 has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the act of 1988”) by the appellant/insurance Company challenging the amount of compensation awarded in favour of claimants and praying for suitable deduction of the same. MAC No.1474/2017 has been filed by appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded in their favour.

¶33

1. Facts of the case, in short, are that the deceased namely Prashant Parate met with an accident occurred on 27.06.2016 at around 7:00 am, near Samrat Dhaba, Village Maraud, in area of Thana- Kurud, District Dhamtari (CG) by offending vehicle bearing registration No.CG-04/HD/8017 being driven rashly and

¶34

¶35

negligently by the driver owned by owner and insured with insurance company. The claim was made to the tune of Rs.1,16,50,000/- as the deceased was aged about 43 years and was earning an annual income of Rs.8,00,000/- by operating a poultry farm. The claim was resisted by driver, owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle on various grounds.

¶36

1. The learned tribunal framed as many as 5 issues and all the issues have been decided in favour of claimants and against the insurance company and awarded Rs.41,33,500/- as compensation to the claimants. The issue germane in this appeal is that whether the learned tribunal has awarded just compensation to the claimants.

¶37

Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has relied upon the income tax return and came to a conclusion that the deceased was earning Rs.3,77,000/- on account of his business of poultry farm which is absolutely on the higher side. He further submits that even if the deceased has died, his income could not have been reduced as the poultry farm would have been still running, as such no loss of income to the claimants. Apart from this, he submits that the compensation awarded on other legally admissible head is on higher side and the deceased did not have driving license, therefore, it could safely be inferred that he had contributed to the accident.

¶38

1. On the other hand, Mr. Shrivastava, learned counsel for claimants submits that admittedly the deceased was running a business of poultry farm and his income tax return for 3-4 years was filed and proved in accordance with law. In his last income tax return, his

¶39

¶40

monthly income was Rs.6,90,740/- which has not been considered by learned tribunal and no future prospects was added, therefore, the amount of compensation ought to have been enhanced.

¶41

Mr. Gupta, opposing the submissions submits that the learned tribunal has categorically discussed this issue and found that the last income tax return was filed after death of deceased. He submits that neither balance-sheet nor the audit report was filed whereas in the previous return filed to show the income, the balance-sheet, audit report, account details were also filed, therefore, learned tribunal has disbelieved the same.

¶42

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

¶43

The deceased was running a business of poultry farm and he has filed his income tax return for 3-4 years from the year 2011-12 to 2015-16. Though the learned tribunal has found that in the previous years the income of the deceased looking to the income tax return filed, was sometime increasing and sometime decreasing, the last income tax return was filed after death of deceased and no balance-sheet, no auditor report was filed and in order to grant just compensation and looking to the fact and circumstances and evidence on record came to conclusion that the yearly income was Rs.3,77,000/- may be taken for computing the compensation. This finding does not appear to be unreasonable or perverse as it appears to have been based upon proper appreciation of evidence oral and documentary brought before the learned tribunal. However, the learned tribunal failed in error in not awarding any future prospects in favour of claimants.

¶44

¶45

1. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others; (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors; (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:-

¶46

S.	Particular	Awarded by this Court
No.
1.	Yearly income of the deceased	3,77,000/-
2.	Future prospect @ 25%	94,250/-
3.	Total income	4,71,250/-
4.	Personal expenditure (1/4^th)	1,17,813/-
5.	Net annual Income	3,53,437/-
6.	Multiplier of 14 applied to assess	49,48,118/-
	total loss of dependency
7.	Funeral Expenses	15,000/-
8.	Loss of estate	15,000/-
9.	Spousal Consortium	40,000/-
9.	Parental consortium	1,20,000/-(40,000/-each)
	Total compensation	51,38,118/-

¶47

1. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs.41,33,500/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs.51,38,118/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.41,33,500/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.10,04,618/- the additional amount shall carry interest @6% per annum from the date of claim application. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent.

¶48

1. The insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within 60 days. After deposit, Rs.2,50,000/- (each) shall be invested as fixed deposit in a nationalized bank for a period of 2 years in the name of appellants/claimants No.1 to 3 Rs.2,50,000/- shall be invested in

¶49

¶50

the name of appellant/claimant No.4 as fixed deposit in the nationalized bank till he attains majority. Remaining amount shall be paid to appellant No.1 through bank transaction/account payee cheque.

¶51

1. As a result MAC No.207/2018 filed by insurance company is dismissed and MAC No.1474 of 2017 is allowed in part.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶54

Parul

Smt. Neeta v. Tannuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Neeta v. Tannuram

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. Bharti Sonwani and others Vs Ashwin Markam and others

Smt. B. Aruna Madhavi Vs B.V.S.N. Murthy

Devaki Verma Vs Hemsing Verma

Naresh Kumar Vs Bhagwat Markam

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Neeta

Sambhav Agro Industries Vs Anupchandra Gupta