Dismissed

Smt. Bharti Sonwani and others v. Ashwin Markam and others

Chhattisgarh HC3 Oct 2023MAC/5/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal filed by next of kin seeking enhancement of motor accident compensation was dismissed. Court found awarded amount just based on evidence and income assessment.

What did the court decide?

Physical enhancement of compensation was refused; original amount upheld.

What the court decided

Smt. Bharti Sonwani and others Vs Ashwin Markam… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 5 of 2017

¶5

Smt. Bharti Sonwani And Others Wd/o Himmat Kumar Sonwani, Aged About 25 Years R/o Saloni, Post Office- Sivni, ThanaAbhanpur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

Raj S/o Late Himmat Kumar Sonwani, Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Bharti Sonwani Appellant No.1 R/o Saloni, Post Office- Sivni, Thana- Abhanpur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

Nitin S/o Late Himmat Kumar Sonwani, Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Bharti Sonwani Appellant No.1 R/o Saloni, Post Office- Sivni, Thana- Abhanpur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Ramkhilawan S/o Daulal Sonwani, Aged About 53 Years R/o Saloni, Post Office- Sivni, Thana- Abhanpur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Binabai W/o Ramkhilawan Sonwani, Aged About 50 Years R/o Saloni, Post Office- Sivni, Thana- Abhanpur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..............Claimants

¶10

---- Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

Ashwin Markam And Others S/o D.N.Markam, R/o Prince Colony, Laxmi Nagar, Ring Road No.1, Raipur, ThanaTikrapara, Tehsil And DistrictRaipur, Chhattisgarh .................Non Applicant No.1/ Driver Cum Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G.04/ D K/0990

¶13

United India Insurance Company Limited, Through- Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Kuchhari Chauk, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh .................Non Applicant No.2/ Insurer Of Vehicle No. C.G.04/ D K/0990,

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

For Appellants	: Shri Akash Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent No.1	: Ms. Pooja Luniya, Advocate
For Respondent No.2	: Shri B.N.Nande, Advocate on behalf of
	Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate

¶16

¶17

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶18

Order On Board

¶19

03/10/2023

¶20

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”) has been filed seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded in favour of appellants/claimants by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur CG in Claim Case No.236/2015 vide award dated 14.06.2016.

¶21

The Claim Application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 was filed by the appellants/claimants on account of death of Himmat Kumar Sonwani who met with an accident on 06.03.2015 at about 4.50 pm at village Dunda, District Raipur (CG) by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Bolero Jeep bearing No. CG04/DK/0990 by the respondent No.1/driver.

¶22

As per pleadings, the deceased was working as Sepoy in the police department of Government of Chhattisgarh and was earning Rs. 18,000/- per month. The appellants/claimants claimed Rs. 68,80,000/as total compensation. The claim application was resisted by the respondents/driver-cum-owner and Insurance Company/Respondent No.2 on various grounds.

¶23

Learned Tribunal framed framed as many as five issues. Issue with regard to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1/driver, contributory negligence and violation of policy was decided against the respondents and in favour of the appellants/claimants. Since they have not challenged the same, they have attained finality. In issue No. 4 and 5, relief and cost, learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 40,71,950/- as

¶24

¶25

compensation.

¶26

Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the learned Tribunal has committed an error of law and fact in awarding the compensation ignoring the income and other admissible heads therefore the amount of compensation may be enhanced suitably.

¶27

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation on the basis of evidence brought before it and assessed the income of the deceased properly and proper compensation under other heads have also been granted.

¶28

7, I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions.

¶29

The appellants/claimants though pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 18,000/- per month however, from the evidence on record and from the statement of AW-3 CS Yadav, employee of the State has categorically stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 16,554/-. This income was taken by the learned Tribunal for assessment of compensation looking to his permanent and salaried employment 50% was also added to his future prospect and after applying the multiplier of 17 looking to the age of the deceased the amount of Rs. 37,96,950/was awarded for loss of dependency, Rs. 25,000/- was awarded for funeral expenses, 1,00,000/- for love and affection and consortium to the wife, Rs. 25,000/- each to claimants 2 & 3 as parental consortium and Rs. 50,000/- each was granted to respondent No. 4 & 5 as Filial

¶30

¶31

Compensation, total compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,71,950/was awarded.

¶32

Considering the evidence on record, the amount awarded cannot be said to be meager and it appears to be just on the basis of the evidence available on record. Therefore I do not find any scope for enhancement. Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶35

suguna

Smt. Bharti Sonwani and others v. Ashwin Markam and others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Smt. Bharti Sonwani and others v. Ashwin Markam and others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushil Kumar Vs Sant Kumar Neti

Aakriti Tiwari (Aakriti Badgaiya) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Yogendra Kumar Patel Vs Santosh Kumar Sahu

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

Devaki Verma Vs Hemsing Verma

Smt. Bindu Bai Vs Raja Khan @ Noor Baksh