Partly allowed

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Pooja Dewangan

Chhattisgarh HC18 Nov 2024MAC/1425/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurer challenged a motor accident compensation award as excessive, contending production incentive was not regular income and conventional heads were too high. Court excluded the incentive, recomputed compensation using Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi principles, and reduced the award.

What did the court decide?

Award modified; compensation reduced from Rs.1,10,02,448/- to Rs.94,48,448/- with interest as awarded by Tribunal.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Pooja Dewangan — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 6

2024:CGHC:45104

NAFR

Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2024.11.22 14:39:45 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 1425 of 2016

¶7

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through- Branch Manager Durg, Branch Office Durg, Rajendra Park Chowk, G.E.Road Durg, Tahsil and District - Durg, Chhattisgarh ................Insurer,

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

1. Smt. Pooja Dewangan W/o Late Anil Kumar Dewangan, aged about 24 years,

¶11

2. Sarthak Dewangan S/o Late Anil Kumar Dewangan, age 1 month, Respondent No.2 is minor through natural guardian mother Smt. Pooja Dewangan, W/o Anil Kumar Dewangan,

¶12

Present R/o Shyamnagar Polsaipara, Durg, P.S. Kotwali, Durg, Tahsil and Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh,

¶13

...Claimants

¶14

3. Chandramani S/o Thakur Deen Yadav, aged about 40 years, R/o Village Duari, P.S. Chorhata, District - Rewa M.P…….....Driver,

¶15

4. Smt. Prema Singh W/o Pushpendra Singh, aged about 45 years R/o Fareda, Post- Manikwar, P.S. Manigavan, District Rewa, M.P., Present Address - Near B.S.N.L. Office, Kading Chowk Rewa, District Rewa, M.P……....Owner,

¶16

5. Jagganath Prasad Dewangan S/o Kheduram Dewangan, aged about 65 years R/o Holika Chowk Dewangan Para Village Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh,

¶17

6. Smt. Pushplata Dewangan, W/o Shri Jagannath Prasad Dewangan, aged about 60 years, R/o Holika Chowk, Dewangan Para Village Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh,

¶18

2 / 6

¶19

7. Ku. Sandhya Dewangan D/o Jagannath Prasad Dewangan, aged about 22 years, R/o Holika Chowk Dewangan Para, Village Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh,

¶20

... Respondents For Appellant/Insurance Co. : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate For Claimants : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate

¶21

Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal,

¶22

Judgment on Board

¶23

19/11/2024

¶24

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – Oriental Insurance Company Limited against the award dated 26.07.2016 passed by the 7^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (C.G.) (in short ‘the Tribunal’) in Motor Accidents Claim Case No.01/2015, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.1,10,02,448/- in favour of the applicant/claimants and nonapplicants No.3, 4 & 6 and against the non-applicant No.5, along with non-applicants No.1 & 2, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realisation.

¶25

2. As per averments made in the claim petition, on 15.06.2013 at about 10:30 PM, deceased – Anil Kumar Dewangan, after his office duty hour, was returning to his house on his motorcycle. When he reached near village Duwari Nawasta, his motorcycle was dashed by the driver of Mahindra Max Vehicle bearing registration No.MP-17-T-1378 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) which was driven by the driver/non-applicant No.1, namely, Chandramani, in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, deceased – Anil Kumar Dewangan, sustained grievous injuries over his body and died on the spot. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non-

¶26

3 / 6

¶27

applicant No.2 Smt. Prema Singh and insured with non-applicant No.5/The Oriental Insurance Company Limited.

¶28

3. On account of death of deceased – Anil Kumar Dewangan, a claim petition was filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.1,75,79,333/- inter alia pleading that at the time of accident, deceased – Anil Kumar Dewangan was aged about 34 years & earning Rs.53,363/- per month by working as an Engineer in the Jaiprakash Associates Limited (Unit : Jaypee Rewa Plant). However, the learned Tribunal vide award dated 26.07.2016, awarded a compensation as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment and fastened the liability upon the non-applicants Nos.1, 2 and 5 jointly and severally.

¶29

4. Mr. Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is on higher side. He further submits that the learned Tribunal, while assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.49,178/- has erred in adding Rs.6,500/-, which ought not to be added as the same was being paid to the deceased towards production incentive and it is not his regular income. Therefore, it is prayed that monthly income of the deceased needs to be reassessed suitably. He further submits that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards other conventional heads are also on higher side, which also needs to be reduced suitably. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130.

¶30

4 / 6

¶31

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the claimants (respondent No.1 & 2) and respondent Nos.5, 6 & 7 submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper. As the deceased was an engineer, he used to receive Rs.6,500/- as production incentives as his income and the same is added in his monthly salary slip (Ex.P-15). Therefore, the learned Tribunal, after proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, has rightly passed the impugned order and the same does not call for any interference. Lastly, he submits that no separate appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement.

¶32

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶33

7. It is not in dispute that the deceased – Anil Kumar Dewangan died in a motor vehicular accident on 15.06.2013 when he was returning to his house after office duty. When he died, he was 34 years of age. He was an Engineer working in Jaiprakash Associates Limited (Unit : Jaypee Rewa Plant). The monthly income of the deceased has been assessed by the learned Tribunal at Rs.49,178/- including production incentive of Rs.6,500/-.

¶34

8. To deal with the contentions of learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to peruse the evidence available on record, particularly, the salary slip of the deceased for the month of May, 2013 which is exhibited as P-15 wherein the gross salary is shown as Rs.53,363.97/-. In paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal after deducting Rs.1,500/- towards conveyance allowance and Rs.2,685/towards income tax, has assessed Rs.49,178/- as monthly income of the deceased. On perusal of the salary slip (Ex.P-15), it is evident that

¶35

5 / 6

¶36

Rs.6,500/- received towards production incentives is not added in the heads of ‘rate of salary’ and the same is mentioned in other head separately. Therefore, it can be said that the amount received by the deceased towards production incentives is not his regular income, and thus, it cannot be added in his monthly income. Thus, after deducting Rs.6,500/- (production incentive) from the monthly income of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.49,178/-, a sum of Rs. 42,678/- would come and it is held that the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.42,678/-. However, there is no dispute with regard to the other assessment made by the learned Tribunal with respect to the age of the deceased, future prospects, deduction towards personal and living expenses, and multiplier, but, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- under other conventional heads which is not in consonance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matters of Pranay Sethi (supra) , Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra).

¶37

9. Thus, I propose to recompute the compensation by taking into account the salary of the deceased at Rs.42,678/- per month i.e. Rs.5,12,136/per annum. Further, taking the guidance from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , Pranay Sethi (supra) , Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) , this Court recomputes the compensation in the following manner:-

¶38

6 / 6

¶39

Sl.	Heads	Calculation
No.		(in rupees)
01.	Income of the deceased @ Rs.42,678/-per month	Rs.5,12,136/- per annum
02.	50% of (1) above to be added towards future prospects. (as applied bythe Tribunal)	Rs.2,56,068/- Rs.5,12,136 + Rs.2,56,068-= Rs.7,68,204/-
03.	1/4 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased	Rs.1,92,051/- Rs.7,68,204 – 1,92,051 = Rs.5,76,153/-
04.	Multiplier of 16 to be applied (as applied bythe Tribunal)	Rs.5,76,153 x 16 = Rs.92,18,448/-
05.	Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses (Rs.15,000 + Rs.15,000)	Rs.30,000/-
06.	Towards loss of consortium to claimants, who are 5 in number, (Rs.40,000/- each)	Rs.2,00,000/-
	Total Compensation	Rs.94,48,448/-

¶40

10. In view of above discussion, the claimants i.e. respondent Nos.1 & 2 and respondent Nos. 5, 6 & 7 are now entitled to a total sum of Rs.94,48,448/- instead of Rs.1,10,02,448/- as awarded by the Tribunal. However, the above amount shall carry interest as awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of filing of claim petition till its realisation. As the respondents/claimants have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by this Court are now attained finality.

¶41

11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain in tact.

¶42

Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge

¶43

Prakash

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Pooja Dewangan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Pooja Dewangan

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

Omprakash Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sarla Agrawal Vs Mahadev Transport Service Bilaspur

Dr. Vitthal Kumar Agrawal Vs Mahadev Transport Service Bilaspur

Yogesh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Sunita Sinha

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Sunita Yadav