Allowed

Kalpna Singh v. Shrawan Kumar Gupta

Chhattisgarh HC11 Oct 2023MAC/171/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the compensation awarded in a motor accident claim case. The court enhanced the compensation from Rs.8,80,000 to Rs.17,65,000 by reassessing the deceased's monthly income and applying standard multipliers from Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.17,65,000; Insurance company directed to deposit enhanced amount within 60 days and distribute proceeds to appellants.

Kalpna Singh Vs Shrawan Kumar Gupta — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 171 of 2017

¶4

1 - Kalpna Singh W/o Late Shri Santosh Singh, Aged About 34 Years Profession- House Wife

¶5

2 - Shailendra Singh S/o Late Shri Santosh Singh, Aged About 18 Years Profession- Student,

¶6

3 - Ku. Nisha Singh D/o Late Shri Santosh Singh, Aged About 17 Years Profession- Student, Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Kalpna Singh,

¶7

4 - Pashupati Singh S/o Late Shri Lal Bahadur Singh, Aged About 80 Years profession- Retired,

¶8

All R/o Mission Chowk, Ring Road, Ambikapur, Tahsil- Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

¶9

---- Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

1 - Shrawan Kumar Gupta S/o Tapeshwari Gupta, Aged About 38 Years R/o Kediya, P.S. Chalgali, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh(Driver Of The Questioned Vehicle Alto Car C.G.11 B A 5662)

¶12

2 - Ajay Narayan S/o Ram Narayan, R/o Dabra Kochali, TahsilBalrampur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj,Chhattisgarh (Owner of The Questioned Vehicle Alto Car C.G.11 B A 5662)

¶13

3 - United India Insurance Company, Brahm Road, Near Kumkum Hotel, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company Of The Questioned Vehicle Alto Car C.G.11 B A 5662)

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

For the Appellants For respondent No.3

¶16

: Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Adv. : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Adv.

¶17

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

¶18

11.10.2023

¶19

1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “ MV Act”) has been filed challenging the award dated 11.11.2016 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur (CG) in Claim Case No.56/2016. By the impugned award, the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.8,80,000/as compensation to the appellants/claimants with 6% interest per annum on account of death of deceased Santosh Singh in an unfortunate accident which took place on 26.08.2015 by rash and

¶20

¶21

negligent driving of respondent No.1/driver by offending vehicle i.e. Alto Car bearing Registration No. CG-11 B.A.-5662.

¶22

As per the pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, the deceased was engaged in the business of transport and also in agricultural work, his annual income at the time of death was Rs.4,09,389/- and he was a tax payer. The appellants/claimants being widow, minor children and father of the deceased had filed the claim application claiming total compensation of Rs.75,09,776/-.

¶23

Respondents No.1 & 2/driver/owner filed their written statement and denied the averments of the claim application and stated that respondent No.1/driver was holding a valid and effective driving license. It was also pleaded that the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.3/Insurance Company, therefore, if any liability to pay compensation is found, the same shall be saddled upon the respondent No.3. Respondent No.3/Insurance company filed its written statement and in usual manner denied the averments of the claim application and pleaded that the offending vehicle was driven by driver without valid and effective driving license which is a violation of the provisions of the MV Act and terms and conditions of the insurance policy and no accident was occurred by the offending vehicle rather he himself committed the accident by hitting to a cow and the deceased did not have any valid and effective driving license and insurer of the said motorcycle are necessary party. Hence, respondent No.3 is not liable to pay the compensation.

¶24

1. On the above pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed as many as 4 issues and also considering the pleadings of the

¶25

¶26

respective parties and the evidence adduced in support thereof decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded compensation to the claimants as mentioned above.

¶27

Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for appellants submits that the deceased was involved in the business of transportation and also in agricultural work and he used to earn Rs.3,00,000/- from the transport business and Rs.1,00,000/- from agricultural sources. He further submits that for the financial year 2014-15 has been presented in which the income from transportation has been mentioned as Rs.03,02,010/- and the income from agricultural has been mentioned as Rs.96,450/-. The said income tax statement is exhibited as Ex.P-7 and the person who filed the income tax statement namely Abhishek Sharma (PW-3) has deposed that the income tax return of deceased Santosh Singh were submitted by him, therefore, the learned tribunal has assessed the monthly income to Rs.5,000/- which is absolutely unjustified. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the tribunal on other heads is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. 6) Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance company opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that there is no cogent and prudent evidence to suggest that the deceased was earning that much of amount as pleaded by the claimants. The learned tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income in absence of documentary prove with regard to his business in agricultural sources, as such the amount of compensation awarded is justified.

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

The first consideration before this Court is that whether the learned tribunal has committed an error in holding the monthly income to Rs.5,000/- for that the claimant No.1/appellant No.1 examined herself as PW-1, she has stated that her husband used to engage in business of transportation and from his transportation business he was earning Rs.3,00,000/- and from agricultural work he was earning Rs.1,00,000/- per year. In her statement she also stated that she cannot tell whether documents related to transport have been submitted or not. She admitted that agricultural related documents have not been presented in the case, she cannot tell whether the documents submitted regarding income tax are of the time of death of the deceased. The witness herself stated that it is of the time when the deceased was alive. She stated that she has not seen the accident happening, hence, she cannot tell with which vehicle and how the accident took place. She specifically denied that she has given wrong details of his income. In order to prove the income tax return Abhishek Sharma was examined as PW-2, he stated that the deceased was his client and he used to submit his income tax return and which is exhibited as Ex.P-7. In his cross-examination, he stated that the deceased had a truck but he did not bring its documents. The witness himself stated that the registration number of the said vehicle was CG 15 AC 3707 and permit, fitness, insurance of this truck is available with him. He also admitted that he has not brought any documents related to the agriculture of the deceased. There was about 10 acres of land in the name of the deceased. He further stated that there is no signature in the statement of 2014-15 income tax return. The witness himself stated that since it is a photocopy, there is no

¶31

¶32

signature. It is stated that the signature of the deceased is not there in the statement of 2015-16. The witness himself stated that the statement which is sent has a signature on it. He admitted that he did not have any prove that the signature of the deceased is not there in the statement of 2015-16. The witness himself said that the details cannot be filled without signature.

¶33

From perusal of entire evidence and particularly looking to Ex.P-7 which is income tax return of the deceased for the assessment year 2015-16 and the same appears to have been filed on 01.02.2016 in the name of deceased. The statement of income and computation of tax which are appended along with the income tax return does not contain any signature of the deceased. Though the accident had occurred on 26.08.2015 and Ex.P-7 indicates that it was filed after death of the deceased and any income tax return which were filed prior to death of the deceased have not been exhibited nor any witness from income tax office was examined to suggest that prior to death, the deceased had submitted his income tax return. No document even the registration certificate of insurance policy permit etc. of the truck allegedly being owned by the deceased is also not on record. No document with regard to details of the agricultural properties owned by the deceased is also not exhibited, except self serving statement of claimant No.1 (PW-1), no cogent and prudent evidence is available, Ex.P-7 is not signed.

¶34

1. From the evidence available on record, this Court is unable to accept the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that the income of the deceased was Rs.4,00,000/- per year. However, Rs.5,000/- assessed monthly

¶35

¶36

income by the learned tribunal is on the lower side. The deceased was between the age group of 41-45 years, the claimants were four in number and depended upon the income of the deceased. The appellants No.2 & 3/claimants No.2 & 3 are stated to be students. The deceased was said to be resident of Ambikapur, District Sarguja, therefore, naturally his income would be that much to raise family of five people Including himself therefore, this Court deem it proper to assess the compensation taken into monthly income to Rs.10,000/-.

¶37

Taking guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter 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 recomputing the compensation as below:-

¶38

S.N.	Particular	Awarded by this Court
1.	Monthly Income of the deceased	10,000/-
2.	Future prospects @ 25%	12,500/-
3.	Yearly income of the deceased	1,50,000/-
4.	Personal expenditure (1/4th)	37,500/-
5.	After deducting personal expenses dependency comes to	1,12,500/-
6.	Multiplier of 14 applied to assess total loss of dependency	15,75,000/-
7.	Funeral Expenses	15,000/-
8.	Loss of estate	15,000/-
9.	Spousal Consortium	40,000/-
10.	Parental consortium	80,000/- (40,000/-each)
11.	Filial consortium	40,000/-
10.	Total compensation	17,65,000/-

¶39

1. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs.8,80,000/- awarded by the tribunal

¶40

¶41

is enhanced to Rs.17,65,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.8,80,000/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.8,85,000/- the additional amount shall carry interest @6% per annum from the date of claim application. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent.

¶42

The insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within 60 days. After deposit, Rs.3,00,000/- shall be invested as fixed deposit in a nationalized bank for a period of 2 years in the name of appellant No.1/claimant No.1; Rs.2,00,000/- shall be invested as fixed deposit in a nationalized bank for a period of 2 years in the name of appellants No.2 & 3/claimant No.2 & 3; Rs.1,00,000/- shall be paid to appellant No.4/claimant No.4 and remaining amount shall be paid to appellant No.1/claimant No.1 through bank transaction/ account payee cheque.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶45

Parul

Kalpna Singh v. Shrawan Kumar Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalpna Singh v. Shrawan Kumar Gupta

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. Vidya Sahu Vs Anil Kumar Yadav

Rabul Barik Vs Smt. Shanti Devi

Purushottam Jaltare Vs Smt. Ramayan Bai

Nohar Lal Sahu Vs Pradeep Thakare

Amit Kumar Vs Prakash Chandra

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