Smt. Savitri Kamar Vs Suresh Bagh

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 1163 of 2019

¶5

Smt. Savitri Kamar W/o Late Kanhaiya Kamar Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Banskunda, Post Office And Police Station Tumgaon, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

¶6

Minor Chamman Kamar S/o Late Kanhaiya Kamar Aged About 16 Years Minor On Behalf Of Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Savitri Kamar Appellant No. 1) R/o Village Banskunda, Post Office And Police Station Tumgaon, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

¶7

Minor Lokesh Kamar S/o Late Kanhiaya Kamar Aged About 14 Years Minor On Behalf Of Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Savitri Kamar Appellant No. 1) R/o Village Banskunda, Post Office And Police Station Tumgaon, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

¶8

Minor Rajkumari Kamar S/o Late Kanhiaya Kamar Aged About 12 Years Minor On Behalf Of Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Savitri Kamar Appellant No. 1) R/o Village Banskunda, Post Office And Police Station Tumgaon, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Minor Yuvraj Kamar S/o Late Kanhiaya Kamar Aged About 9 Years Minor On Behalf Of Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Savitri Kamar Appellant No. 1) R/o Village Banskunda, Post Office And Police Station Tumgaon, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Devsingh Kamar S/o Late Jhuru Kamar Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Banskunda, Post Office And Police Station Tumgaon, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶11

---- Appellants

¶12

Versus

¶13

Suresh Bagh S/o Kumamani Bagh Aged About 27 Years R/o Neem Chowk, Ward No. 17, Subhash Nagar, Post Office And Police Station Mahsamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

¶14

Bharat Lal Sahu S/o Budhan Lal Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o L.I.G. 114, Kavita Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶15

The Branch Manager The Oriental Insurer Company Limited Through The Branch Manager Branch Office, Madina Building, Jail Road Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶16

---- Respondents

¶17

For the Appellants : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1 & 2. : Mr. Kripesh G. Kela, Advocate For Respondent No.3. : Mr. H.S. Patel, Advocate

¶18

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

¶19

13.02.2024

¶20

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for

¶21

short MV Act) has been filed by the appellants/claimants, being

¶22

2

¶23

aggrieved by the award dated 28.07.2018 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, DistrictMahasamund, (CG) in Claim Case No. 78/2016.

¶24

1. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs. 28,44,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 09,77,200/- to the appellants/claimants, on account of the death of deceased/Kanhaiya Kamar in an accident that took place on 13.02.2016 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Tata Indica Car) bearing Registration No. C.G.-04-HA-5699, driven by driver- Suresh Bagh, owned by owner- Bharat Lal Sahu & insured with the respondent No. 3/The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. As a result of the said accident, the deceased/Kanhaiya Kamar suffered grievous injuries and was admitted to Government Hospital, Mahasamund during treatment he died.

¶25

1. As per the pleadings, the deceased/Kanhaiya Kamar was aged about 35 years and was working as a Mason & Carpenter and was earning Rs. 300/- per day. The appellants/claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased.

¶26

1. Respondent No. 1 & 2/Driver & owner filed their written statement and denied the averments of the claim application and stated that liability to pay the compensation is upon the insurance company. Respondent No.3/Insurance company in usual course, denied the averments of the claim application and pleaded that negligence is on the part of the deceased/Kanhaiya Kamar himself, the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence and there is a violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy.

¶27

3

¶28

1. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed 6 issues and after appreciating the material available on record decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded above stated compensation.

¶29

1. Mr. Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased/Kanhaiya Kamar was aged about 35 years and was working as a Mason & Carpenter and was earning Rs. 300/per day, whereas the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased/Kanhaiya Kamar to Rs. 4,500/-. Alternatively, he submits that looking to the date of accident, number of dependents, atleast minimum wages should have been taken for assessment of compensation and amount on other heads is also on the lower side. Hence, suitable enhancement may be made by this Court.

¶30

1. Mr. Kripesh G. Kela, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 supports the award.

¶31

1. Mr. H.S. Patel, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. submits that no documents with regard to age, profession and income of the deceased/Kanhaiya Kamar were placed on record, therefore, in view of evidence available on record, the findings of the learned Tribunal is justified and just compensation has been awarded.

¶32

1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records.

¶33

1. Barring the oral evidence of the appellants/claimants, no documentary evidence with regard to profession/income of the deceased/Kanhaiya Kamar has been filed. However, looking to age of the deceased; date

¶34

4

¶35

of accident; number of dependents; nature of job & minimum wages prevailing at that time, this Court is of the view that Rs. 6,500/- can be safely taken as income of the deceased.

¶36

In light of the above and taking guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others; (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 & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:-

¶37

S.N	Particular		Awarded by this Court
1.	Monthly Income of deceased	the	6,500/-
2.	Future Prospects @ 40%		2,600/-
3.	Total Income		9,100/-
4.	Total Yearly Income		9,100X12= 1,09,200/-
5.	Personal expenditure (¼)		1,09,200/4= 27,300/-
6.	Net Income		1,09,200- 27,300=81,900
7.	Multiplier of 16 applied assess total loss dependency	to of	81,900X16= 13,10,400/-
8.	Funeral Expenses		15,000/-
9.	Loss of estate		15,000/-
10.	Spousal Consortium		40,000/-
11.	Parental & Filial consortium		2,00,000/-(40,000/-each A- 2 to A-6)
	*Total compensation*		Rs. 15,80,400/-

¶38

For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 09,77,200/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.

¶39

5

¶40

15,80,400/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 09,77,200/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 06,03,200/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @6% per annum from the date of claim application. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent.

¶41

The insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from today, on such deposit being made, Rs. 01,50,000/- shall be deposited in the name of appellant No.1 for a period of 3 years in FDR at any Nationalized Bank, Rs. 01,00,000/- each shall be deposited in the name of appellant/claimant Nos. 2 to 5 till they attain majority, Rs. 50,000/- shall be deposited in the name of appellant/claimant No.6/Devsingh Kamar for a period of 1 year, remaining amount shall be paid to appellant/claimant No.1/Smt. Savitri Kamar through bank transaction/account payee cheque.

¶42

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶45

H.Ansari

Smt. Savitri Kamar v. Suresh Bagh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Savitri Kamar v. Suresh Bagh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Pandey Vs Rajkumar Singh

Smt. Lata Devi Vs Karamjeet Singh

Sarita Patel Vs Jugal Kishore Agrawal

Moharmati Vs Ramkumar Khalkho

Smt. Lalita Verma Vs Karnail Singh

Santlal Gupta Vs Nehru Lal Yadav