Smt. Pyari Bai Vs Krishnan K.

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 117 of 2016

¶5

Smt. Pyari Bai W/o Kumar Potai, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Bandhapara, Krishtipur, Police Station Korar, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

Kumar Patoi S/o Roydas Potai, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Bandhapara, Krishtipur, Police Station Korar, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

---- Appellants/Claimants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Krishnan K. S/o Kallappan, R/o D.No. 4/47, Vogaputti, Post Krishnapuram Taluk, District Dharampuri Tamilnadu. ( Driver of vehicle Truck No. KA-22-C-7288).

¶10

S. Kalaiselvan S/o Subramanyam, R/o Shri Krishna RIG Services No. 10, S.S. Building, A.V. Road, Chamrajpet, District Bangalore Karnataka. ( Owner of vehicle Truck No KA-22-C-7288).

¶11

United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Jail Road, Kachahari Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer of vehicle Truck No. KA-22-C7288).

¶12

---- Respondents For Appellants : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Adv. For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Chitra Shrivastava, Adv. For other Respondents : None.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board

¶14

(03.05.2024)

¶15

This appeal arises out of the award dated 15.10.2015 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), North Bastar Kanker (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 51/2012 awarding a compensation of Rs.50,000/- with

¶16

2

¶17

interest @ 6% per annum, in favour of the appellants/claimants for their irreparable loss.

¶18

The averment in the claim petition, in brief, is that on 30.09.2011, Dilip Kumar Potai being a porter (coolie) travelled in a truck bearing registration No. KA-22-C-7288 and the truck being driven by its driver/respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner due to which the truck was overturned, by which Dilip Kumar Potai (now deceased) sustained grievous injuries on his head and chest. Dilip Kumar Potai was taken to Bagalkot Hospital for treatment, but he succumbed to the injuries during treatment. A report was lodged, based on which offence was registered. It is stated that on the date of the accident, the age of the deceased (Dilip Kumar) was 30 years and was working as a porter (coolie) from which he was used to earn Rs. 4,000/per month. Due to the casual death of the deceased, there is an irreparable loss to the appellants/claimants. Therefore, the appellants (parents of the deceased) preferred an application to claim a total compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

¶19

When the claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act for compensation was filed by appellants before the claims tribunal against the driver, owner and insurance company of the alleged vehicle the tribunal found that the claimants are not dependent on the deceased as the claimant No. 2 has 3-acre agricultural land from which he earns livelihood for him and his wife and also found that even the deceased was not living with the claimants and was living separately and held that the claimants are not entitled for any compensation on the head of loss of dependency and Rs. 25,000/- towards filial consortium and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses has been calculated and total compensation of Rs. 50,000/awarded in favour of the claimants. Hence, this appeal for enhancement.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. He further

¶21

3

¶22

submits that the claimants have pleaded the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000/- per month as the deceased was working as a porter, but the learned Claims Tribunal has not assessed the income of the deceased and nothing has been awarded to the claimants towards the loss of dependency on the ground of that the appellants are not dependent on the deceased and only Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded on the other heads. Hence, this appeal may be allowed and needs to be enhanced suitably.

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 supported the impugned award and submitted that the award impugned is correct on the facts and circumstances of the case and no need to interfere with the award impugned.

¶24

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶25

In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza.

¶26

Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

¶27

On the claim application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by the parents (claimants) of the deceased the claims Tribunal found and held that the claimants are not dependent upon the deceased and nothing has been awarded in favour of the claimants towards loss of dependency.

¶28

In Smt. Manjuri Bera .vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2007) 4 MLJ 906(SC) , the married daughter claimed compensation for the death of her father who died in a road accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal rejected the claim and the same was confirmed by the High Court. The claim was rejected on the

¶29

4

¶30

ground that there was no dependency and the matter was taken before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that even if she is not a dependent, she could maintain an application claiming compensation, if she is the legal representative under Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act contemplates that an application claiming compensation could be filed by the legal representatives. It is held that even if the legal representative is not a dependent, he could still claim compensation and the legal representative is entitled to compensation not less than the liability referred to under Section 140 of the Act. Para 16 of the judgment relevant for the case, is extracted here-under:

¶31

"16. Judged in that back ground where a legal representative who is not dependant files an application for compensation, the quantum cannot be less than the liability referable to Section 140 of the Act. Therefore, even if there is no loss of dependency the claimant if he or she is a legal representative will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall be not less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There will be no order as to costs. We record our appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Shri. Jayant Bhushan, the learned Amicus Curiae."

¶32

Thus, applying the aforesaid principle to the case in hand, the parents of the deceased being legal representatives are also entitled for compensation towards loss of dependency. In this situation, the finding of the Tribunal is not found just and proper and required to interfere with the award impugned. In the present case, as regards the income of the deceased, the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/-. per month from his work as a porter. It is the duty of the Court that the awarded compensation amount to the claimant should be just and proper. Therefore, regarding the income of the deceased, keeping in mind the nature of the occupation, date of the accident, wage structure prevailing on the date of the accident, price index and cost of living etc. especially notification issued by the Labour Department for minimum wages. Upon considering the

¶33

5

¶34

aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate to take the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,136/- per month as the minimum wage of unskilled workers, at the relevant time of the accident i.e. 30.09.2011. The annual income comes to Rs.49,632/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 19,853/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 69,485/-.

¶35

In the instant case, the deceased was aged about 30 years and was unmarried and the claimants are the parents of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/2 i.e. Rs. 34,742/-, the annual dependency of the appellants comes to Rs. 34,742/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 5,90,614/-. The claimants are further entitled for loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-, for funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- and as per ' Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189 , the claimants are further entitled for loss of love and affection Rs. 40,000/- each i.e. Rs. 80,000/-. Therefore, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 7,00,614/-. Thus, the claimants would become entitled for compensation in the following manner:-

¶36

S.No.	Heads	Calculation
01	Towards loss of dependency	Rs. 5,90,614/-
02	Towards loss of estate	Rs. 15,000/-
03	Towards love and affection to all the two claimants @ Rs. 40,000/-	Rs. 80,000/-
04	Funeral Expenses	Rs. 15,000/-
	Total	Rs. 7,00,614/-

¶37

6

¶38

Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 7,00,614/-. After deducting Rs.50,000/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 6,50,614/-.

¶39

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 6,50,614/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.

¶40

The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Tribunal below. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a coordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants resides.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶43

H. L. Sahu

Smt. Pyari Bai v. Krishnan K.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pyari Bai v. Krishnan K.

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

Vikram Singh @ Vicky Vs Haridarshan

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Bhaskar Dewangan

Ghanshyam Sahu Vs Pramila Bai

Ganesh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Rita Kumari

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Vs Pannalal