Allowed

Branch Manager , the Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Mus. Indira Bada

Chhattisgarh HC15 Feb 2023MCC/647/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed an interlocutory application by an insurance company to correct a calculation error in compensation quantum, reducing the payable amount from Rs.23,52,485/- to Rs.21,44,728/- based on corrected income figures.

What did the court decide?

The total compensation payable to the claimants was modified from Rs.23,52,485/- to Rs.21,44,728/- to correct an arithmetic error in the calculation of future loss of income.

Branch Manager , the Oriental Insurance Company… — Banking and Recovery | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

M.C.C. NO. 647 OF 2022

¶5

• Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, near Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant/Appellant

¶6

versus

¶7

1. Mus. Indira Bada, Wd/o Late Manjit Bada, aged about 27 years, R/o Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Ku. Aditi Bada, D/o Late Manjit Bada, aged about 4 years, Minor, through natural guardian Mother Mus. Indira Bada, R/o Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Bholaram Bada, S/o Late Mangan Ram Bada, aged about 55 years, R/o Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Tilaso Bai, W/o Bholaram Bada, aged about 50 years, R/o. Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Kapil Dev Sharma, W/o Rammani Sharma, aged about 63 years, R/o Kewda Badi, Police Station Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 6. M/s Basant Roadways Service, through Prop. Alok Agrawal, Seth Basant Lal Marg Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondents

¶8

For Applicant/Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 4 : Ms. Neeta Choubey, Advocate. For Respondent No.6 : Mr. B.P. Gupta, Advocate.

¶9

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board [ 1 5/02/2023]

¶10

1. The present MCC has been filed by Applicant-Insurance Company seeking for modification/correction of the calculation error that has occurred in the course of quantification of compensation while passing the Order dated 26.9.2022 in M.A.(C) No.750/2015.

¶11

2. Learned Counsel for Applicant-Insurance Company drew the attention of this Court to the calculation reflected in Para No.10 of the said Order. Referring to Para 10, he submits that after assessing the monthly income at Rs.8147/-, the yearly income was calculated at Rs.97,764/- of which 1/4th deduction towards personal expenses had come to Rs.73,323/-. Thereafter, while adding 50% towards the future loss of income, 50% amount was added on the yearly income of Rs.97,764/instead of Rs.73,323/- (that is the amount which came after deducting 1/4th of the yearly income of Rs.97,764/-), which is an erroneous calculation. Thereafter, applying the multiplier of 17 to the amount of Rs.1,22,205/- the total amount of Rs.20,77,485/- was quantified towards the loss of income, which requires modification/correction.

¶12

-2-

¶13

3. According to learned Counsel for Applicant-Insurance Company, the 50% income towards the future loss of income was in fact to be calculated on the amount of Rs.73,323/- (that is the amount which came after deduction of 1/4th of the yearly income of Rs.97,764/-) instead of the yearly income of Rs.97,764/- itself. Accordingly, on adding 50% of Rs.73,323, the addition of both would come to Rs.1,09,984/- to which applying the multiplier of 17 the amount towards the loss of income would reach to Rs.18,69,728/- instead of Rs.20,77,485/- as quantified by this Court in the said Order. Thus, after adding the amount of Rs.2,75,000/-, as calculated by the Tribunal towards the conventional heads, to the said amount of Rs.18,69,728/-, the total amount of compensation payable to the Claimants would come to Rs.21,44,728/-. Learned Counsel for Applicant-Insurance Company thus submits that the Claimants shall be entitled for the total compensation of Rs.21,44,728/- instead of Rs.23,52,485/- as calculated by this Court and prays for the modification of the Order dated 26.9.2022 to that extent.

¶14

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents/Claimants does not have any objection to the aforesaid correction/modification sought for by the learned Counsel for Applicant-Insurance Company in the Order dated 26.9.2022 to the extent indicated above.

¶15

5. In view of above, the present MCC deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. It is ordered that the total compensation payable by the Insurance Company to the Claimants would now stand modified to Rs.21,44,728/instead of Rs.23,52,485/-. The Order dated 26.9.2022 passed in M.A.(C) No.750/2015 stands accordingly modified/corrected. However, the other parts of the Order shall remain intact.

¶16

6. The MCC stands allowed and disposed of accordingly. Let a copy of this Order be made part of the record of M.A.(C) No.750/2015.

¶17

(P. Sam Koshy)

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Judge

¶20

/sharad/

Branch Manager , the Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Mus. Indira Bada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Branch Manager , the Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Mus. Indira Bada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chamru Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kumari Indu Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jogiram Cherwa (Abated) Vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Kondaram and Ors. Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh

Mohan Lal Sinha Vs Shri Rituraj Raghuvanshi

Jawahar Gond Vs State of Chhattisgarh