Allowed

Smt. Ansuiya Bai v. Narad Sahu

Chhattisgarh HC5 Oct 2023MAC/333/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court enhanced compensation awarded in a motor accident claim by increasing the notional annual income of the deceased from Rs. 54,000 to Rs. 82,500, adding consortium and funeral expenses, and deducting the earlier award to determine the final payable amount.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 05,09,375 to be paid by the respondent-driver and insurer within 60 days with 6% interest.

Smt. Ansuiya Bai Vs Narad Sahu — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (C) No. 333 of 2017

¶4

Smt. Ansuiya Bai Wd/o Late Shri Jagatram Sahu, aged about 45 years

¶5

Dev kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Jagatram Sahu, aged about 22 years

¶6

Tejeshwari Sahu D/o Late Shri Jagatram Sahu, aged about 20 years

¶7

Ku. Domeshwari D/o Late Shri Jagatram Sahu, aged about 18 years

¶8

All are R/o Village Ganeshpur, PO G- Jamgaon, Tahsil – Kurud, District Dhamtari, CG

¶9

Appellants/Claimants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Narad Sahu S/o Shri Devnarayan Sahu R/o Village Bhainsbod, PO Avari, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, CG

¶12

Driver-cum-Owner of the offending vehicle

¶13

The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. First Floor Madina Building Jail Road Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur, C G

¶14

Insurer of the offending vehicle

¶15

	---Respondents
For appellants -	Shri Karan Kumar Bahrani, Advocate
For respondent No.1-	Shri Pravin Dhurandhar, Advocate
For respondent No.2-	Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate

¶16

Order on Board by Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput 05/10/2023

¶17

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act (for short “MV Act”) is against the impugned award dated 10.11.2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short “Tribunal”) Dhamtari, CG, in Claim Case No. 81/2015. By this award, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 4,85,000/- in favour of the appellants/claimants who happen to be the wife, son and daughters of the deceased Jagatram Sahu aged about 50 years at

¶18

¶19

the relevant time, payable by the driver-owner and the insurer (respondents 1 and 2 respectively), jointly and severely.

¶20

Facts in short : On 19.05.2015 the motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-04-CF-3225 ridden by the deceased Jagatram Sahu and pillion ridden by one Kamal Nisad was dashed by the Pick-up vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04-JC-1015 which was driven by respondent No.1 Narad Sahu in a rash and negligent manner. In the said accident Jagatram Sahu suffered serious injuries and succumbed to the same while being under treatment.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellants claimants submits that though the monthly income of the deceased was pleaded as Rs. 5,000/- yet this Court can grant more compensation that what is claimed by taking the minimum wages prevailing at the relevant time. He further submits that even the amount awarded on other conventional heads is on the lower side and being so, the compensation needs to be suitably enhanced. In support of his submission, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others reported in (2003) 2 SCC 274 .

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondents however oppose the submission of the counsel for the appellants as regards computation of compensation. Learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance company however added that the insurance company is not liable to satisfy the award, and for that it has also filed an appeal separately.

¶23

After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the annual notional income of the deceased taken by learned Tribunal as Rs. 54,000/- is considerably on the lower side. This in fact should be as per the prevailing minimum wages at the relevant time and it that is taken into consideration, the monthly income of the deceased should be at Rs. 5,500/- and the annual

¶24

¶25

being Rs. 66,000/-. Assessed accordingly. Further, taking the age of the deceased i.e. 50 years at the relevant time, it can safely be inferred that there might have been 25% hike in his income which comes to Rs. 16,500/-, and adding the same total annual income rises to Rs. 82,500/-. Now, looking to four number of dependents ¼ of his annual income i.e. Rs. 20,625/- has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased and the remaining one i.e. Rs. 61,875/- towards the sustenance of the dependents. Computed so. Further, applying the legally permissible multiplier of 13 the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 08,04,375/-. Held accordingly, Further, the appellants are entitled to Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium, and Rs. 30,000/- towards funeral expenses and loss of estate = Rs. 70,000/which takes the compensation up to Rs. 8,74, 373/-. Rs.40,000/- is further added towards parental consortium to two sons and one daughter = 1,20,000/- which rises the compensation to 9,94,373/-.

¶26

The compensation amount already awarded i.e . Rs. 4,85,000/- is required to be deducted and doing so the enhanced compensation amount for which the appellants/claimants are entitled comes to Rs. 05,09,375/- to be paid within 60 days with 6% interest. Learned Tribunal shall apportion the same in terms of the award.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶29

Jyotishi

Smt. Ansuiya Bai v. Narad Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ansuiya Bai v. Narad Sahu

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

Naresh Kumar Vs Bhagwat Markam

Smt. Neeta Vs Tannuram

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Neeta

Kamal Nishad Vs Narad Sahu

Chamaru Das Manikpuri Vs I. C. I. C. I. - Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Shankar Lal Nag