Partly allowed

Umashankar Nigam v. Suman @ Rahul Burman

Chhattisgarh HC28 Nov 2023MAC/892/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the Tribunal under-rewarded compensation in motor accident claim. Court enhanced compensation from Rs.6.63L to Rs.8.83L based on Rs.6k monthly income and added interest and deposit directions.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.2,19,600; interest at 6%; Rs.40k deposit per co-appellant; balance via bank.

Umashankar Nigam Vs Suman @ Rahul Burman — Execution and Attachment | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 892 of 2017

¶5

Umashankar Nigam S/o Late Shri Maikulal Nigam, Aged About 56 Years R/o Ekta Chowk Imalibhatha Mahasamund, Thana, Civill And Revenue District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶6

Ravikant Nigam S/o Shri Umashankar Nigam, Aged About 21 Years R/o Ekta Chowk Imalibhatha Mahasamund, Thana, Civill And Revenue District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶7

Ku. Kirti Nigam D/o Shri Umashankar Nigam, Aged About 20 Years R/o Ekta Chowk Imalibhatha Mahasamund, Thana, Civill And Revenue District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Ku. Tripti Nigam D/o Shri Umashankar Nigam, Aged About 20 Years R/o Ekta Chowk Imalibhatha Mahasamund, Thana, Civill And Revenue District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Smt. Ritu Shrivastava D/o Shri Umashankar Nigam, Aged About 24 Years W/o Shri Saurabh Shrivastava, R/o Ekta Chowk Imalibhatha Mahasamund, Thana, Civill And Revenue District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh .............Claimants

¶10

---- Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

Suman @ Rahul Burman S/o Bijen Burman, Aged About 30 Years R/o Thana Camp Block 4 In Front Of Shiv Mandir Mana, Thana Mana Civil And Revenue District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Kumharpara Chhura, Tahsil Chhura, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh ..............Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G.04 H Q 5146

¶13

Sewaram Sahu S/o Shri Jagdish Sahu, Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Bhotha Palasipali Thana Komakhan, Tahsil Bagbahra, Civil And Revenue District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ..............Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G.04 H Q 5146

¶14

Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office Madina Building, Jail Road Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..............Insurer Of Vehicle No. C.G.04 H Q 5146

¶15

---- Respondents

¶16

For Appellants : Shri Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate

¶17

For respondent No.3 : Shri Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶19

Order On Board

¶20

28/11/2023

¶21

Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 25/01/2017 passed by the 1^st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (CG) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.H 07/2016.

¶22

¶23

Facts of the case in brief is that the appellants / claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short ‘MV Act’) claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.28,50,000/- on account of death of deceased Pushpa Nigam in an unfortunate accident that took place on 14/04/2015 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Motor Cycle bearing registration No.CG 04 H Q 5146 driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3 / insurance company. As per pleadings of the claim application, the deceased – Pushpa Nigam was aged about 54 years, she was educated upto B.Sc. She was imparting tuition in her house and was earning Rs.10,000 per month. The claim application was resisted by the respondents on various grounds. Learned Tribunal framed issues and decided the same in favour of the appellants / claimants and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.6,63,800/-.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant / claimant submits that the income of the deceased has been wrongly assessed and the amount of compensation on other heads is also on the lower side.

¶25

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 supports the award and submits that the income was not proved in accordance with law.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶27

Considering the evidence available on record, minimum wages and number of dependents, this Court is inclined to assess the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.6,000/-.Since the deceased was aged about 54 years, 10% future prospects is added.

¶28

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 -

¶29

1	Monthly income	Rs.6,000/-
2	Add: Future prospects (6000 + 600)	10% Rs.6,600/-

¶30

¶31

3	1/4 deduction for personal expenses (6600 / 4)	Rs.4950/-
4	Applying multiplier of 11 (4950x11)	Rs.54,450/-
5.	Loss of dependency (54450 x 12)	Rs.6,53,400/-
6.	Add : Funeral expenses, loss of Estate, Spousal consortium	Rs.70,000/-
7.	Add: Parental Consortium	Rs.1,60,000/-
	TOTAL COMPENSATION	Rs.8,83,400/-
	Less: Award by the Tribunal	Rs.6,63,800/-
	Enhanced compensation	Rs.2,19,600/-

¶32

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.40,000/- each be paid to appellants / claimants No.2 to 5 and the remaining amount be paid to appellant No.1 / claimant no.1 through bank transaction/account payee cheque.

¶33

With the aforesaid observation, the appeal is partly allowed.

¶34

Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge

¶35

Deepti

Umashankar Nigam v. Suman @ Rahul Burman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umashankar Nigam v. Suman @ Rahul Burman

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

M/s Fair Flux p Limited Vs Smt. Kanka

Anup Lal Nishad Vs Ravi Sahu

Sail Bai Vs Shri Lal Yadav

Ramlal Minj Vs Manoj Singh

Laxmin Bai Vs Branch Manager, Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited

Santoshi Bai Vs C.g. State Forest Development Corporation Limited