Partly allowed

Vikash Tiwari v. Nirmal Kumar Jain

Chhattisgarh HC11 Feb 2024MAC/103/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Parents of a man killed in a motorcycle-car collision appealed the Tribunal's award under Section 173 MV Act. The court raised the deceased's notional monthly income to Rs.6,000, applied future prospects and consortium heads per Supreme Court precedents, and enhanced compensation by Rs.3,29,800 with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs.3,29,800 with 6% interest; Rs.1,50,000 each appellant placed in 3-year fixed deposit, remainder to appellant No.2.

Vikash Tiwari Vs Nirmal Kumar Jain — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

M.A.(C) No. 103 of 2018

¶4

Vikash Tiwari, S/o Adityanarayan Tiwari, aged about 50 Years, R/o Village Chinouri, Tahsil Charama, Distt. Utter Bastar, Kanker (Chhattisgarh)

¶5

Smt. Indu Devi Tiwari, W/o Vikash Tiwari, aged about 47 Years, R/o Village Chinouri, Tah. Charama, District Utter Bastar, Kanker (Chhattisgarh)

¶6

--- Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Nirmal Kumar Jain, S/o K.M. Jain, aged about 49 Years, R/o Ramaiya Ward Moti Talapara, Jagdalpur, Distt. Jagdalpur (Chhattisgarh) (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle)

¶9

Manish Kumar Duggad, S/o Late Bhikham Chan Duggad, Rathri Road , Pratap Dev Ward No.11, Jagdamba Chowk, Jagdalpur, Distt. Jagdalpur (Chhattisgarh) (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle)

¶10

Rayal Sundaram Insurance Company Limited, Melram Towers No. 2/319 Rajeev Gandhi Salai O.M.R. Karppkka Chennai Registered Office Patulos Road Chennai (Insure Of The Offending Vehicle)

¶11

--- Respondents

¶12

_____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Shri A.L.Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Shri Anupam Dubey, Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

12/02/2024

¶16

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for

¶17

short ‘MV Act’) by the appellants/claimants against the award dated 27/07/2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Uttar Bastar, District – Kanker (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 48/2016.

¶18

2. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs.21,90,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.06,37,000/- against the

¶19

-2-

¶20

respondents on account of death of deceased Ashish Tiwari in a motor vehicular accident.

¶21

3. As per pleadings of the claim application, appellants / claimants filed an application under sections 166(1) and 140 (1) of the MV Act, on 03/12/2015 deceased Ashish Tiwari along-with his friend was going from Village Jaipara to Kajhar in their motorcycle. When they reached near Markatola Bridge at NH-30 main road Charama, Dhamtari at about 12:30pm the driver of offending vehicle Car bearing registration No. CG17/KH/2802 by rash and negligent manner driving dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from back side. As result, deceased sustained severe injury on head and various parts of the body. Thereafter, deceased was taken to the Primary Health Center, Charama where he was declared dead by the doctor. The offending vehicle was driven by respondent No.1 / driver, owned by Respondent No.2 /owner and insured with the respondent No.3 / Insurance company.

¶22

4. The claim application was resisted by the respondents on various grounds. The respondent / Insurance Company took a plea that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license, therefore the insurance company may be exonerated.

¶23

5. The learned Tribunal framed issues and decided the same in favour of the appellants and awarded Rs.06,37,000/- as compensation holding the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.3,000/-.

¶24

6. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the deceased was a agriculturist and used to give Harvester on rent and was earning Rs.10,000/per month; the amount awarded by learned Tribunal on the other head is also on lower side which requires suitable enhancement by this Court.

¶25

7. Learned counsel for respondent support the award and submit that the appellants / claimants could not brought any document on record to prove the income of the deceased, therefore just compensation has been awarded which does not require any interference.

¶26

-3-

¶27

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

¶28

9. The appellants / claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month from agriculture work and giving Harvester on rent. Barring the oral statement, no documentary evidence was brought on record to substantiate the income, however considering the evidence available on record, nature of job and minimum wages prevailing and age of the decease was at about 30 years at the time of incident and parents were also dependent on the deceased and looking to the date of incident, this court takes monthly income of deceased to Rs.6,000/-.

¶29

10. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130 , this court is reassessing the compensation in the

¶30

following manner :-

¶31

S.No.	Head	Calculation
1.	Monthly Income	Rs.6000/-
2.	40% future prospect	Rs.2400/-
3.	Total Monthly Income	Rs.8,400/-
4.	Yearly Income after deduction of 50%	Rs.8,400 X 12 / 2 = Rs.50,400/-
5.	Loss of depedency	Rs.50,400 X 17 = Rs. 8,56,800/-
6.	Loss of Estate & Funeral Expenses	Rs.30,000/-
7.	Filial Consortium	Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each appellant)
	Total compensation	Rs.09,66,800/-

¶32

-4-

¶33

11. Since the tribunal has already awarded Rs.06,37,000/-, after deducting the same from the above amount, the claimants are held entitled for additional compensation of Rs.03,29,800/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application till realization. The amount shall be deposited within a period of 60 days from the date of copy of receipt of copy of this order.

¶34

12. Rs.1,50,000/-(one lakh and fifty thousand) each shall be invested in the name of appellant No.1 and 2 as fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank for a period of 3 years. Remaining amount shall be paid to appellant No.2 by bank transaction / account payee cheque.

¶35

13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the award impugned to the above extent.

¶36

Sd/--

¶37

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶38

Ashish

Vikash Tiwari v. Nirmal Kumar Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikash Tiwari v. Nirmal Kumar Jain

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

Puniram Patle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukesh Khunte Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ganga Yadav Vs Punaram Yadav

Jitendra Pandey Vs Rajkumar Singh

Smt. Lata Devi Vs Karamjeet Singh

Sarita Patel Vs Jugal Kishore Agrawal