Allowed

Phanendra Kumar Sahu v. Neeraj Pathak

Chhattisgarh HC7 Feb 2024MAC/133/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the High Court of Chhattisgarh enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the death of the deceased son. The Court rejected the Tribunal's application of a multiplier despite low income findings, directed the insurance company to deposit the enhanced amount, and ordered creditor beneficiaries to secure

What did the court decide?

The compensation enhanced from Rs. 5,79,000/- to Rs. 10,17,200/-; the insurance company directed to deposit the enhanced amount within 60 days, with Rs. 2,00,000/- for each of the two appellants to be

Phanendra Kumar Sahu Vs Neeraj Pathak — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 133 of 2018

¶4

1 - Phanendra Kumar Sahu S/o Lilaram Sahu Aged About 49 Years R/o Village - Hasda No.1, Khisora, Tahsil And Thana - Magarlod, Distt. Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh)

¶5

2 - Smt. Meena Sahu W/o Phanendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Village - Hasda No.1, Khisora, Tahsil And Thana - Magarlod, Distt. Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh)

¶6

---- Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

1 - Neeraj Pathak S/o Shri Mahendra Pathak Aged About 24 Years R/o Typing Gali, Purani Basti, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (Non Applicant No.1) (Driver)

¶9

2 - Ramkumar Singh Thakur S/o Shri Kewal Singh Thakur R/o Near Hanuman Mandir, Aminpara, Purani Basti, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (Non Applicant No.2) (Owner),

¶10

3 - Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Comp. Ltd. 3rd Floor Dainik Bhashkar Complex, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur, Tahsil And Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (Non Applicant -3) ---- Respondents

¶11

Mr. Sudhir Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. Arvind Panda, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

¶12

____________________________________________________________

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput,

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

08.02.2024

¶16

This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) challenging the award dated 25.10.2017 passed in Claim Case No. 103/2016 passed by the 6^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur, CG. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs. 26,50,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 5,79,000/on account of death of deceased Raju Sahu in an accident that took place on 06.06.2015 by rash and negligent driving of the

¶17

¶18

offending vehicle car bearing registration No. CG 04 HJ 9979 driven by the respondent No. 1 / driver, owned by respondent No. 2 / owner and insured with respondent No. 3 / insurance company.

¶19

As per the pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was aged about 22 years, he was working as an electrician and was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month.

¶20

The claim application was resisted by the respondents on various grounds and the learned Tribunal framed issues on the basis of the pleadings and decided the same in favour of the appellants / claimants.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellants / claimants submits that the income of the deceased has been considered on the lower side, future prospect is also not awarded and compensation on all other heads is also on the lower side. In support of above contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Smt. Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 supports the award and submits that no documents with regard to his profession or income has been filed and looking to the evidence

¶23

¶24

brought on record, just compensation has been awarded, hence no interference is warranted.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record.

¶26

The learned tribunal found that the monthly income of deceased to Rs.6,000/- which is in the opinion of this Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence, this finding is hereby maintained. Taking guidance from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Pranay Sethi (supra) , and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130 this Court computes the compensation in the following manner:-

¶27

S. No.	Description	Amount
1.	Monthlyincome	6000/-
2.	40% Futureprospect	2400/-
3.	Total MonthlyIncome(6000+2400)	8400/-
4.	Total YearlyIncome(5700x12)	1,00,800/-
5.	1/2 Deduction for personal expenses of deceased	50,400/-
6.	Net income	50,400/-
7.	Multiplier of 16 applied to assess total loss of dependency	9,07,200/-
8.	Funeral Expenses	15,000/-
9.	Loss of estate	15,000/-
10.	Parental consortium	80,000/-(each)
	Total compensation	10,17,200/-

¶28

¶29

For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 5,79,000/- awarded by learned tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 10,17,200/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 5,79,000/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 4,38,200/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent.

¶30

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within 60 days. After deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- (each) shall be invested as fixed deposit in a nationalized bank for a period of three years in the name of appellant Nos. 1 & 2; Remaining amount shall be paid to appellant No. 2 through bank transaction/account payee cheque. No premature withdrawal is permitted without the leave of learned Tribunal.

¶31

10. No cost.

¶32

Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶33

PAWAN

Phanendra Kumar Sahu v. Neeraj Pathak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phanendra Kumar Sahu v. Neeraj Pathak

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

Dinesh Kumar Vaishnav Vs Shatruhan Khairwar

Prahalad Sahu Vs Sudhir Sultaniya

Smt. Radhika Devi Vs Jaisingh

Smt Pinki Chowdhary Vs Mishra Rana Singh

Vijay Bahadur Singh Vs Satya Prakash Sahu

Balaram Rana Vs Sharafat Hussain