Partly allowed

Anup Lal Nishad v. Ravi Sahu

Chhattisgarh HC24 Nov 2023MAC/351/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges the motor accident compensation award set at Rs. 6.65 lakhs by the Tribunal. The High Court found the monthly income assessment was low and enhanced it to Rs. 6,000/-, applying statutory multipliers to award Rs. 11.37 lakhs total, leading to an enhancement of Rs. 4.72 lakhs plus interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,72,200/- awarded with 6% interest; fixed deposits for minors; remaining balance paid.

Anup Lal Nishad Vs Ravi Sahu — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 351 of 2017

¶5

Anup Lal Nishad S/o Late Parasram Nishad, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Binodha, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Bankimongra, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶6

Smt. Leela Bai W/o Anup Lal, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Binodha, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Bankimongra, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶7

Savita Kumari D/o Anup Lal, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Binodha, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Bankimongra, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Nikita Kumari D/o Anup Lal, Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Binodha, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Bankimongra, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Jyoti Kumari D/o Anup Lal, Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Anup Lal, R/o Village Binodha, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Bankimongra, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ................Claimants

¶10

---- Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

Ravi Sahu S/o Ramkumar Sahu, Aged About 21 Years R/o Near I E B Rest House, Ward No.19 Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ................Driver Of Offending Vehicle

¶13

Ramkumar Sahu S/o Chheduram Sahu, Aged About 40 Years R/o Near I E B Rest House, Ward No.19 Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ................Owner Of Offending Vehicle

¶14

United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Division Office Seetamani Main Road, District Korba, Chhattisgarh .................Insurance Of Offending Vehicle

¶15

---- Respondents

¶16

For Appellants	:	Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, Advocate
For Respondents 1 and 2	:	Shri Vishwanath Shriwas, Advocate counsel on behalf of Shri P.M.Shriwas, Advocate
For Respondent No.3	:	Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate

¶17

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶19

Order On Board

¶20

24/11/2023

¶21

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V.Act’) has been filed by the appellants / claimants being aggrieved by award passed in Motor Accident Claim case No.88/2013 by the Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District – Korba (CG) on 27/08/2016.

¶22

Facts of the case in brief is that the deceased Sushil @ Sunil Kumar Nishad was going to Engineering College riding on his bicycle on 09/04/2013 and he was dashed by the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CG04 G 2488 driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1 / driver, owned by respondent no.2 / owner and insured with respondent No.3 / insurance company. As a result of the said accident, Sushil died and as per further pleading, he was the student of the Engineering and used to impart tuition and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The claimants claimed total compensation of Rs.33,00,000/- from the respondents.

¶23

Respondents 1 and 2 / driver and owner filed their written statement and denied averments of the claim application. It was pleaded that no accident had occurred on account of negligence of respondent no.1 / driver rather the accident had occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased. On the date of incident, respondent no.1 / driver had valid and effective driving license, the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company and for compensation, the insurance company is liable.

¶24

Respondent no.3 / insurance company also filed its written statement and denied averments and pleaded that on the date of incident, respondent no.1 /driver did not have valid and effective driving license. There is a violation of the policy as there was no permit or fitness certificate. The deceased Sushil @ Sunil Kumar Nishad also contributed to the accident. On the basis of above broad pleadings, learned Tribunal framed 7 issues and decided those issues in favour of the claimants / appellants and against respondents. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.6,65,000/- as compensation holding the monthly income to Rs.5,000/-.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant / claimants argued that the deceased was a

¶26

¶27

student of Engineering college, therefore, the monthly income of Rs.5,000/- is on the lower side. No future prospect has been awarded and compensation on other heads is also on the lower side.

¶28

Shri Vishwanath Shriwas and Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respective respondents oppose the submission and submits that the deceased was a student, he had no income and there was no documentary evidence to prove that he was imparting tuition to students, therefore, income of Rs.5,000/- assessed by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be on the lower side and just compensation has been awarded. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record.

¶30

From the evidence on record, the deceased was a student in the Engineering College. Considering the entire facts and circumstances and evidence on record, statement of the witnesses, Rs.5,000/- assessed as monthly income by the Tribunal appears to be on the lower side. Therefore, this Court is assessing the monthly income to Rs.6,000/-.

¶31

Taking guidance from the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and ors, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court hereby computes the compensation in the following manner -

¶32

1	Monthly income	Rs.6,000/-
2	Future prospects 40% (6000 + 2400)	Rs.8400/-
3	Yearly income (8400x12)	Rs.1,00,800/-
4	Applying multiplier of 18	Rs.18,14,400/-
5.	1/2 deduction for personal expenses (since the deceased was a bachelor)	Rs.9,07,200/-

¶33

¶34

6.	Add : Funeral expenses, loss of Estate etc.	Rs.30,000/-
7	Add : Filial consortium	Rs.2,00,000/-
	TOTAL COMPENSATION	Rs.11,37,200/-

¶35

The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,65,000/- which is deducted from the total compensation i.e. 11,37,200/- and the enhanced compensation comes to Rs.4,72,200/-. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, interest @ 6% is also awarded on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim application till its realisation. On deposit, Rs.50,000/- each be paid to appellants / claimants No.2, 4 and 5 and Rs.1,50,000/- each be invested as fixed deposit in a nationalised Bank in the name of appellants / claimants no. 1 and 2 for two years. Remaining amount be paid to appellant No.1 and 2 / claimants no.1 and 2.

¶36

With the aforesaid observation, the appeal is partly allowed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge

¶39

Deepti

Anup Lal Nishad v. Ravi Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anup Lal Nishad v. Ravi Sahu

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

Raju Maharaj @ Shailendra Awasthi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Shanti Sing Vs Sachiv, Vijay Jalkshatriya

Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur Vs Smt. Shanti Singh

M/s Fair Flux p Limited Vs Smt. Kanka

Sail Bai Vs Shri Lal Yadav

Rajendra Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh