Partly allowed

Smt. Bindu Bai v. Raja Khan @ Noor Baksh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Oct 2023MAC/691/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court enhanced motor accident compensation from Rs.12,65,250 to Rs.29,29,420 by correcting income assessment to include allowances and applying future prospects and consortium awards under Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal award enhanced from Rs.12,65,250 to Rs.29,29,420; additional Rs.16.64 lacs at 7% interest payable; excess amount to be apportioned and invested.

Smt. Bindu Bai Vs Raja Khan @ Noor Baksh — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 691 of 2017

¶4

1 - Smt. Bindu Bai Wd/o Late Fatte Lal Jangade, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Parsada, P.S. Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶5

2 - Aman Jangade S/o Late Fatte Lal Jangade, Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Appellant No.1, Smt. Bindu Bai, R/o Village Parsada, P.S. Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh,

¶6

3 - Ku. Vandana Jangade D/o Late Fatte Lal Jangade, Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Appellant No.1, Smt. Bindu Bai, R/o Village Parsada, P.S. Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 4 - Ghasnin Bai Wd/o Late Muge Lal Jangade, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Parsada, P.S. Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

---- Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 - Raja Khan @ Noor Baksh S/o Ilahi Khan, R/o Subhash Nagar, Ward No.17, Mahasamund Tah. And Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Doman Chandrakar S/o Prem Lal Chandrakar, R/o Village Chhatauna Farfaud, P.S. Arang, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Chola Mandalam General Insurance Company Limited, Office At In Front Of L.I.C. Building, Pandari Bus Stand, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For the Appellants : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate For R-3 : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate None for respondent No.1, though served.

¶14

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

¶15

03.10.2023

¶16

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the act of 1988”) by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Raipur (CG) (for short “ The Tribunal”) in Claim case No.650/2014 awarding a compensation of Rs.12,65,250/- in favour of appellants/claimants herein. The parties hereinafter referred to their status before the learned tribunal.

¶17

1. A claim application under Section 166 of Act of 1988 has been filed by appellants/claimants seeking compensation on account of death of deceased Fattelal Jangde in an accident which occurred

¶18

¶19

on 13.09.2014 and the accident was caused by the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. CG-04/E-0524 which driven rashly and negligently by the driver/respondent No.1. As a result of which the deceased suffered serious injuries on his person who ultimately died during treatment on 07.10.2016. The accident was reported to the Police Station and after due investigation chargesheet was filed in the Competent Court, the deceased was aged about 34 years at the time of the accident and he was working as a carpenter in Jindal Steel Power Limited and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, hence the claimants claim total compensation to the tune of Rs.67,50,000/-.

¶20

The claim application was resisted by driver and owner by filing a joint written statement and denied the averments of the claim application. They pleaded that the driver had a valid and effective driving license, the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company, therefore for payment of any compensation, insurance company would be liable. The insurance company also filed its written statement and denied the averments of the claim application. It was pleaded that on the date of alleged accident the driver was driving the vehicle without valid and effective driving license. Due to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, the driver, the owner, the insurance company of motorcycle were required to be arrayed as party. There is a violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy, therefore, insurance company has no liability to pay the compensation.

¶21

1. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned tribunal framed as many as 5 issues and the issues so framed with regard to rash and negligent driving, violation of the policy was decided in favour

¶22

¶23

of claimants. With regard to issue No.3 i.e. income of the deceased the tribunal found that the deceased was earning Rs.6100/- per month. With regard to issue No.4 & 5 relief and cost, the tribunal awarded Rs.12,65,250/- along with interest as compensation to the appellants/claimants.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the learned Tribunal has committed an error of law in holding the monthly income of deceased as Rs.6,100/- which is contrary to the evidence and record despite the salary slip was proved by calling the employer which clearly goes to show that the monthly income of deceased was Rs.13,000/-. He further submits that though the learned tribunal has relied upon the salary slip of the deceased however only accepted the basic pay and other perks added in the basic pay have not been considered. Therefore, compensation may be suitably enhanced.

¶25

1. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3/ insurance company submits that the learned tribunal has rightly assessed the income of deceased as Rs.6,100/- per month and submits that looking to the evidence on record, the compensation has rightly been awarded and does not require any interference by this Court.

¶26

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

¶27

1. The claimants proved the income of the deceased by producing the salary slip of the deceased from month of July, 2014 to September, 2014 which was marked Ex.P-14 to16 which is hereby reproduced as under:-

¶28

¶29

July 2014

¶30

Ea	rnings
Basic	6100.00
Skill	508.00
CEA	200.00
TA	800.00
UMA	200.00
Spec. Allow.	4500.00
HRA	1220.00
Total	13528.00

¶31

Deduction
PF	732.00
Advance	0.00
Electrical	0.00
Cable	150.00
Bus	0.00
Mess	0.00
Income Tax	0.00
EWS	61.00
ESIC	234.00
Total	1177.00
Net pay	12351

¶32

August 2014

¶33

Earnings	Earnings
Basic	6100.00
Skill	508.00
CEA	200.00
TA	800.00
UMA	200.00
Spec. Allow.	4500.00
HRA	1220.00
Total	13528.00

¶34

Deduction Deduction
PF 732.00
Advance 0.00
Electrical 0.00
Cable 150.00
Bus 0.00
Mess 0.00
Income Tax 0.00
EWS 61.00
ESIC 234.00
Total 1177.00
Net pay 12351

¶35

September 2014

¶36

Earnings	Earnings
Basic	6100.00
Skill	508.00
CEA	200.00
TA	800.00
UMA	200.00
Spec. Allow.	4500.00
HRA	1220.00
Total	13528.00

¶37

Deduction Deduction
PF 732.00
Advance 0.00
Electrical 0.00
Cable 150.00
Bus 0.00
Mess 0.00
Income Tax 0.00
EWS 61.00
One Day Basic 203.00
ESIC 234.00

¶38

¶39

Total	1380.00
Net Pay	12148

¶40

1. The learned Tribunal while deciding the income of the deceased placed reliance upon Ex.P-14 to Ex.P-16 and stated that there is no reason to disbelieve the same. The findings of the learned tribunal appears to be erroneous and in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indira Srivastava & Ors. reported in (2008) 2 SCC 763 the other perks be paid to the deceased apart from the basic pay are required to be added.

¶41

1. Considering the age of the deceased Fattelal Jangde on the date of accident, taking into consideration the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , there has to be 50% addition of his income towards future prospects. In addition there to as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram in AIRONLINE 2018 SC 189 filial and parental consortium is to be awarded and multiplier of 15 is required to be applied in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:-

¶42

S.	Particular	Awarded by this Court
No.
1.	Monthly income of the deceased	13528/-
2.	Future prospect @ 50%	6,764/-
3.	Total income	20,292/-
4.	Personal expenditure (1/4^th)	5073/-
5.	Net annual Income	15219x12=1,82,628/-
6.	Multiplier of 15 applied to assess	27,39,420/-

¶43

¶44

	total loss of dependency
7.	Funeral Expenses	15,000/-
8.	Loss of estate	15,000/-
9.	Towards spousal Consortium to	40,000/-
	appellant No. 1
10.	Towards parental consortium to	80,000/-
	appellants No. 2 & 3
11.	Towards Filial consortium to	40,000/-
	appellant No. 4
	Total compensation	29,29,420/-

¶45

1. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs.12,65,250 /-awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs.29,29,420/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.12,65,250/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.16,64,170 /- the additional amount shall carry interest @7% per annum from the date of claim application. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. After the additional amount is deposited, Rs.16 lacs shall be apportioned amongst claimants as per terms of the award and shall be invested in a Nationalized bank for a period of 2 years and remaining amount shall be disbursed to them through bank transactions/account payee cheque.

¶46

1. Appeal thus partly allowed.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶49

Judge

¶50

Parul

Smt. Bindu Bai v. Raja Khan @ Noor Baksh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bindu Bai v. Raja Khan @ Noor Baksh

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

Sushil Kumar Vs Sant Kumar Neti

Aakriti Tiwari (Aakriti Badgaiya) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Yogendra Kumar Patel Vs Santosh Kumar Sahu

Smt. Bharti Sonwani and others Vs Ashwin Markam and others

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

Devaki Verma Vs Hemsing Verma