Partly allowed

Smt. Jaya v. Kamlesh

Chhattisgarh HC1 May 2024MAC/1102/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the High Court enhanced the death compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal from Rs.31,80,000 to Rs.39,03,750, directing the insurance company to deposit the additional amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.7,23,750/- to be paid by Respondent No.3 with 6% interest, with specific amounts invested in FDR for minor appellants.

Smt. Jaya Vs Kamlesh — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 1102 of 2017

¶5

1 - Smt. Jaya Wd/o Heeralal Khemani, Aged About 39 Years

¶6

2 - Rahul S/o Late Heeralal Khemani, Aged About 21 Years

¶7

3 - Ketan S/o Late Heeralal Khemani, Aged About 19 Years

¶8

4 - (Died And Deleted) Smt. Gopi Devi As Per Honble Court Order Dated 2901-2024.,

¶9

---- Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

1 - Kamlesh S/o Rajeev Yadav, C/o Mukesh Sharma, Rahul Road Carrier, 200/2 Devendra Complex, Ring Road No.2 Tatibandh, Police Station Amanaka, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - Mukesh Sharma Address Rahul Road Carrier 200/2 Devendra Complex, Ring Road No.2 Tatibandh, Police Station Amanaka, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - The New India Assurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager Division No.1, Jail Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh,

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

For the Appellants : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Adv. For respondent No.3 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Adv.

¶16

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

¶17

02.05.2024

¶18

1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short " MV Act") has been filed challenging the award dated 06.04.2017 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District- Raipur (CG) in Claim Case No.91/2014. By the impugned award, the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.31,80,000/- as compensation to the appellants/claimants on account of death of deceased Heeralal Khemani in an unfortunate accident which took place on 14.09.2013 by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing Registration No. C.G./04/F-6399 by driver/respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2/owner and insured with Insurance Company/respondent No.3.

¶19

1. As per the pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, the deceased was aged about 40 years and earning an income of Rs.25,000/- per month by working as a Supervisor. The

¶20

¶21

appellants/claimants being widow, son and mother of the deceased had filed the claim application claiming total compensation of Rs.93,40,000/-.

¶22

Respondents No.1 & 2 remained ex parte before the tribunal. The claim application was resisted by the insurance company taking a plea that the offending vehicle was driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy.

¶23

1. The learned tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed issues and after appreciation of evidence and material available on record awarded the compensation as stated above.

¶24

1. Learned counsel for appellants/claimants submits that the impugned award by the claims Tribunal is bad in law, perverse, thus liable to be modified and enhanced. Apart from this, the compensation awarded on other heads is also on the lower side.

¶25

1. Learned counsel for insurance company supported the award and submits that

¶26

the compensation has rightly been awarded and does not require any interference by this Court.

¶27

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

¶28

Considering that the deceased Heeralal Khemani on the date of accident was aged about 40 years, keeping in view the nature of his job, evidence available on record, number of dependents and minimum wages prevailing, this Court holds the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.25,000/- and in light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors; (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram

¶29

& Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130 , this Court is computing the compensation as

¶30

below:-

¶31

S.N.	Particular	Awarded by this Court
1.	Monthly Income of the deceased	25,000/-
2.	Future prospects @ 25%	6250/-

¶32

¶33

3.	Total yearly Income	31,250x12=3,75,000/-
4.	Income Tax	17,500/-
5.	Net Income	3,57,500/-
6.	Personal Expenditure (1/4th)	89,375/-
7.	Net Income	2,68,125/-
8.	Multiplier of 14 applied to assess total loss of dependency	37,53,750/-
9.	Funeral Expenses	15,000/-
10.	Loss of estate	15,000/-
11.	Spousal consortium	40,000/-
12.	Parental consortium	80,000/- (40,000/- each)
13.	Total compensation	39,03,750/-

¶34

1. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs.31,80,000/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs.39,03,750/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.31,80,000/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.7,23,750/-, the additional amount shall carry interest @6% per annum from the date of this order. The insurance Company/respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within 60 days.

¶35

1. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. On deposit being made, Rs.1,00,000/- each shall be invested in the name of appellants/claimants No.2 & 3 as FDR in a nationalized bank for two years; Rs.5,00,000/- shall be invested in the name of appellant/claimant No.1 as FDR in a nationalized bank for two years and the remaining amount shall be paid to appellant No.1 by bank transaction/account payee cheque.

¶36

1. Appeal thus partly allowed.

¶37

Sd/(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

Smt. Jaya v. Kamlesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jaya v. Kamlesh

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

Yogesh Jaiswal Vs Sebastiyus Ekka

Mamta Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sukhnandan Singh Paikra Vs Navrang

Somendra Pouranik Vs New Jeevan Bus Service

Univeb Sleepers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Shri Deosingh Sai Paikra Vs Shri Madhusudan Singh