Partly allowed

Smt. Vidya Sahu v. Anil Kumar Yadav

Chhattisgarh HC10 Oct 2023MAC/198/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal partly, modifying the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award. The Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 13,34,000 by correcting the deceased's income to Rs. 8,500/month and calculating future prospects based on Supreme Court precedents, granting an additional Rs. 4,57,600 along with interest.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs. 04,57,600 with interest at 6% per annum granted; total compensation enhanced to Rs. 13,34,000.

Smt. Vidya Sahu Vs Anil Kumar Yadav — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

M.A.(C) No. 198 of 2022

¶4

Smt. Vidya Sahu, W/o Shivnarayan Sahu, aged about 50 Years Resident of Gandhi Nagar, Birgaon, Police Station - Urla, Raipur , Tahsil and District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶5

Shivnarayan Sahu S/o Lekhram Sahu, aged about 54 Years Resident of Gandhi Nagar, Birgaon, Police Station - Urla, Raipur , Tahsil and District -Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

--- Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Anil Kumar Yadav, S/o Rajendra Prasad Yadav, aged about 32 Years Resident of Block 115 Ward No. 9, Korba, Police Station and District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

(Driver And Owner Of Truck No. C.G. - 12/s/4342)

¶10

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., C.B.O. 20, Madira Building, First Floor, Jail Road , Kachahari Chowk, Raipur City And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

(Insurer Of Truck No. C.G. - 12/s/4342)

¶12

--- Respondents ________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate. For Insurance Company : Shri Raj Awasthi, Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

10/10/2023

¶16

This appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants being aggrieved by the award dated 07/10/2021 passed by the III^rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur(C.G.) in Claim Case No. 390/2018.

¶17

As per pleadings of the Claim application filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act, 1988”) by the appellants/claimants, while Versha Sahu was returning to her home at Birgaon in her Scooty (two wheeler) on 07/10/2022, as she reached near Dhaneli Naka, Village - Khamtarai, District-

¶18

-2-

¶19

Raipur (C.G.), at the same time respondent No.1 / driver, driving the offending vehicle Truck No. CG12/S/4342 in rash and negligent manner dashed the Scooty of the deceased. As a result of which deceased sustained severe injuries and she was admitted at Heritage Hospital, Devendra Nagar, Raipur for treatment and during treatment she died. The report of the incident was lodged in Police Station - Khamtarai, District – Raipur, upon which crime no. 289/18 under sections 279, 337, 304-A I.P.C. was registered against the respondent No.1/driver and after the investigation charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. The appellants/claimants further pleaded that on the date of incident, the deceased was aged about 29 year old and was working as Teacher in R.P.S. school, Birgaon and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. The appellants/claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased and they claimed Rs.51,00,000/- as total compensation against the respondents.

¶20

Respondent No.1 driver cum owner filed his written statement and except the admitted facts, denied the averments of the claim application. It was pleaded that the respondent No.1/driver had valid and effective driving license. The offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2/Insurance Company and the liability to pay compensation is on the respondent No.2 / Insurance Company.

¶21

The respondent No.2 / Insurance Company filed its written statement and pleaded that respondent No.1/driver did not have valid and effective driving license and there is violation of

¶22

-3-

¶23

conditions of the Insurance Policy. The deceased herself was responsible for accident and also pleaded that there is collision of two vehicles, therefore, it’s a case of contributory negligence.

¶24

After framing of issues and recording the evidence, the learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by both the parties, held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligence driving of respondent No. 1 / driver, contributory negligence and violation of insurance policy has been decided in favour of the claimants/appellants. The learned tribunal awarded Rs.8,76,000/- as compensation.

¶25

The question before this court is whether the learned tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation to the appellants/claimants.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that looking to the evidence available on record, the learned tribunal erred in holding monthly income of the deceased to Rs.6,000/-, whereas she was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. She further submits that no future prospects has been awarded and the compensation awarded on other admissible heads is also on lower side. Therefore, the amount of compensation may be suitably enhanced.

¶27

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 / Insurance Company supported the impugned award and submits that the appellants/claimants could not prove the income, therefore, the finding with regard to income is correct and does not require any interference. He submits that just compensation

¶28

-4-

¶29

has been awarded. Appeal has no merits deserves to be dismissed.

¶30

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

¶31

From the perusal of the record it is manifest that the deceased was a salaried employee working as Teacher at Raipur Public School VIP Colony, Birgaon and she was earning salary of Rs. 8,500/- per month (R.1,02,000/- per annum) from salary certificate which is marked as Ex.P./12. This document was exhibited and proved by Radhika Yadav examined as AW/3. Apart from this other documents to substantiate this fact also filed and proved.

¶32

So far as determination of age of the deceased to be 31 year is concerned, the same appears to be just and proper. Further the Tribunal was justified in making 1/2th deduction from the income of the deceased towards her personal and living expenses. The learned tribunal was correct in applying multiplier of 16. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130 , the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:-

¶33

-5-

¶34

S.No .	Head	Calculation
1.	Yearly Income	Rs.8,500/- x 12 = Rs.1,02,000/- per annum
2.	50% future prospect	Rs.51,000/-
3.	Total yearly income	Rs.1,53,000/-
4.	1/2 deduction for personal expenses	Rs.76,500/-
5.	Loss of dependency	Rs.76,500 X 16 = Rs.12,24,000/-
4.	Funeral Expenses	Rs.15,000/-
5.	Loss of Estate	Rs.15,000/-
6.	Filial consortium	Rs.80,000/-(Rs.40,000/-each)
	Total compensation	Rs. 13,34,000/-

¶35

Since the tribunal has already awarded Rs.08,76,400/-, after deducting the same from the above amount, the claimants are held entitled for additional compensation of Rs.04,57,600/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application till realization. The amount shall deposited within a period of 60 days from the date of copy of receipt of order.

¶36

After deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- (each) shall be invested in the income of appellants/claimants as fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank for a period of 2 years. Remaining amount shall be paid to appellants/claimants by bank transaction / account payee cheque.

¶37

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the award impugned to the above extent.

¶38

Sd/-/-

¶39

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶40

Ashish

Smt. Vidya Sahu v. Anil Kumar Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vidya Sahu v. Anil Kumar Yadav

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

Amarnath Mane Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rahul Singh Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Saddam Ansari Urf Laddu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rabul Barik Vs Smt. Shanti Devi

Purushottam Jaltare Vs Smt. Ramayan Bai

Satish Kumar Rathiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh