Partly allowed

Moharmati v. Ramkumar Khalkho

Chhattisgarh HC12 Feb 2024MAC/128/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident death appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. Court reassessed deceased's income at Rs.4,000 per month with 40% future prospects and multiplier of 16, awarding additional Rs.1,12,800 with interest against the insurer.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs.1,12,800 with 6% interest from date of claim application, payable by respondent No.3 insurer within 60 days.

Moharmati Vs Ramkumar Khalkho — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

M.A.(C) No. 128 of 2017

¶4

Moharmati, Wd/o Late Sh. Homlal Sidar, aged about 38 Years, R/o Lingiyadeeh, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶5

--- Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ramkumar Khalkho, S/o Sh. Premlal Khalkho, aged about 27 Years, R/o Village Amaghat, P.S. Tamnar, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Driver of Offending Vehicle Trailer Bearing Registration No. C.G.10 C 2474

¶8

Neeraj Kumar Baranwal, S/o Sh. Ramchandra Baranwal, R/o Deendayal Colony, Jagatpur Deemra Chowk, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh,Chhattisgarh (Owner of Offending Vehicle Trailer Bearing Registration No. C.G.10 C 2474)

¶9

Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Manager, Opposite- L I C Office Simran Tower, Vidhansabha Road, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Branch Manager, Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Limited, Rajeev Plaza Old Bus Stand Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer of Offending Vehicle Trailer Bearing Registration No. C.G.10 C 2474)

¶10

--- Respondents

¶11

____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Shri Abhay K. Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 & 2 : Shri Swayam Tehanguriya, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Shashi Bhusan Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Shristy Upadhyay, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Ghanshayam Patel, Advocate.

¶12

_____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

13/02/2024

¶15

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) by the appellants/claimants against the award dated 21/01/2016 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 908/2014.

¶16

-2-

¶17

2. By the impugned award against a claim of Rs.8,25,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,92,000/- in favour of appellant / claimant on account of death of her daughter in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 27/07/2014.

¶18

3. As per pleadings of the Claim application filed under section 166 of the MV Act, on 27/07/2014, deased Lukeshwari unmarried daughter of appellant along-with her father was going to Village Bamhanipali on motorcycle. When they reached near Daijhari Veerrnaryan Chowk, then the offending vehicle trailer bearing registration No. CG10/C/2474 coming from backside by rash and negligent driving dashed the motorcycle of the deceased father. As a result deceased and her father sustained multiple injuries and Lukeshwari died on the spot. 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. The deceased was 18 years, working as beautician at beauty parlor and was earning Rs.5000/- per month.

¶19

4. The claim application was resisted by the respondents on various grounds. The respondent No. 3 / Insurance Company took a plea that there is a violation of Insurance Policy as the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license, therefore the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.

¶20

5. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed as many as six issues and decided the same in favour of the appellant / claimant and awarded above stated compensation.

¶21

6. Learned counsel for the appellant / claimant argues that the monthly income of the deceased assessed to Rs.3000/- which is on lower side. Apart from this, compensation on other heads is also on lower side which requires suitable enhancement by this Court.

¶22

7. Learned counsel for respondents support the award and submit that the appellant / claimant could not brought any document on record to prove the income of the

¶23

-3-

¶24

deceased, therefore just compensation has been awarded which does not require any interference.

¶25

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

¶26

9. Considering the entire evidence available on record, age of the deceased, minimum wages prevailing at that point of time, nature of job and looking to the date of incident i.e. 27/07/2014, this court safely can take monthly income of deceased to Rs.4,000/-. She was found to be aged between 15-20 years, therefore, 40% future prospects is added.

¶27

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

¶28

130 , this court is reassessing the compensation in the following manner :-

¶29

S.No.	Head	Calculation
1.	Income of the deceased @ 4000/- per month	Rs.48,000/- per annum (Rs.4000/- X 12)
2.	Future prospect 40%	Rs.19,200/-
3.	Total Yearly Income	Rs.67,200/- (48,000 + 19,200)
4.	1/2 deduction for personal expenses	67,200 – 33,600 = Rs.33,600/-
5.	Multiplier of 16 to be applied	Rs.33,600 x 18 = Rs.6,04,800/-
6.	Towards loss of estate, funeral expenses, filial consortium	Rs.70,000/-
	Total compensation	Rs.6,74,800/-

¶30

11. Since the tribunal has already awarded Rs.4,92,000/-, after deducting the same from the above amount, the appellant / claimant is held entitled for additional compensation of Rs.01,12,800/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application till realization. The amount shall be deposited by respondent No.3 /

¶31

-4-

¶32

Insurance company within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶33

12. Rs.1,00,000/- (One lakh) shall be invested in the name of appellant as fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank for a period of 3 years. Remaining amount shall be paid to him by bank transaction / account payee cheque. No premature withdrawal will be permitted without the leave of the learned Tribunal.

¶34

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

¶35

to the above extent.

¶36

Sd/-/--

¶37

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶38

Ashish

Moharmati v. Ramkumar Khalkho

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moharmati v. Ramkumar Khalkho

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

Jitendra Pandey Vs Rajkumar Singh

Smt. Lata Devi Vs Karamjeet Singh

Sarita Patel Vs Jugal Kishore Agrawal

Smt. Lalita Verma Vs Karnail Singh

Smt. Savitri Kamar Vs Suresh Bagh

Santlal Gupta Vs Nehru Lal Yadav