Smt. Sunita Ekka Vs Manoj Kumar

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

M.A.(C) No.182 of 2020

¶5

Smt. Sunita Ekka W/o. Late Agustus Kujur, Aged About 30 Years R/o. Village Vishrampur, Tola Goriya, Barwar, Arakshi Kendra, Ranka, District Gadwa (Jharkhand).................Claimant

¶6

Varsha Rani Kujur D/o. Late Agustus Kujur, Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sunita Ekka, W/o. Late Agustus Kujur, Aged About 30 Years. R/o. Village Vishrampur, Tola Goriya, Barwar, Arakshi Kendra, Ranka, District Gadwa (Jharkhand)................Claimant

¶7

Vipul Kujur S/o Late Agustus Kujur, Aged About 8 Years Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sunita Ekka, W/o. Late Agustus Kujur, Aged About 30 Years. R/o. Village Vishrampur, Tola Goriya, Barwar, Arakshi Kendra, Ranka, District Gadwa (Jharkhand)..............Claimant ---- Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Manoj Kumar S/o. Bholaram, Aged About 35 Years Present R/o. Ward No. 14, Ramanujganj, Arakshi Kendra, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. Permanent R/o. Village Godarmana, Arakshi Kendra Ranka, District Gadwa (Jharkhand) (Driver Of The Vehicle)..................Defendant

¶10

Krishna Kumar Gupta, S/o. Kapoorchand Sao, Aged About 40 Years R/o. Near Chandni Chowk, Ramanujganj, Arakshi Kendra And Tehsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) (Owner Of The Vehicle)................Defendant

¶11

The Oriental Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Through Branch Manager Near Ambedkar Chowk, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company Of The Vehicle)....................Defendant

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For Appellants: For Respondents No.1 & 2: For Respondent No.3:

¶14

Shri Anurag Singh, Advocate. Shri TR Patel, Advocate. Shri HP Prasad, Advocate.

¶15

2

¶16

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Order On Board

¶17

15.06.2024

¶18

This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') by the Appellants/Claimants questioning the legality and propriety of the award dated 22.08.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balrampur, District Ramanujganj (CG) (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.50/2017 by which, the Claims Tribunal, while allowing the claim in part, awarded a total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.20,87,200/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till its realization, while fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company.

¶19

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 10.06.2010, deceased Augustus Kujur was going along with Vikas Kujur to his village Vishrampur, District Gadwa from Ranchi by his motorcycle bearing registration No.CG 15 CI 6377 and when they reached Gadwa-Ambikpur road, Respondent No.1/driver who was driving the offending vehicle i.e. Scorpio bearing registration No.JH 14A 9401 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed his motorcyle as a result of which, the deceased died on spot.

¶20

On account of the aforesaid accident, the Claimants being

¶21

3

¶22

the wife and children of the deceased, instituted a Claim Petition enumerated under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming total amount of compensation of Rs.44,84,000/- under various heads by submitting inter alia that the deceased, who was 25 years old, was working as Official Soldier and used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Claimants submits that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly calculated the loss of future prospects to the tune of 15% as the deceased was born on 08.01.1981 and on the date of incident i.e. 10.06.2010, he was 29 years 5 months and 2 days old, which has been recorded in the pension slip of the deceased (Ex.P-6). He further submits that the deceased was below the age of 40 years and had a permanent job of Constable in the State Police Department and as such, instead of 15%, 50% of the actual salary should be awarded in view of para-59.3 of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. He further submits that towards loss of love and affection and loss of estate, a lumpsum amount of Rs.35,000/- has been awarded and as per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, loss of consortium to the wife and loss of filial consortium to both the children ought to have been awarded @ Rs.40,000/- per head whereas, under the said head only Rs.50,000/- has been awarded to wife, therefore, on such

¶23

4

¶24

score, the award is required to be modified and prays to allow the Appeal while suitably enhancing the compensation awarded.

¶25

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondents i.e. Driver, owner and Insurance Company have supported the impugned award and submitted that according to the Claims Tribunal, Ex.P-6 i.e. the pension slip of the deceased is undisputed wherein the date of birth of the deceased was recorded as 08.01.1981 and as such, on the date of the incident, he was about 29 years old, therefore, in view of the judgment rendered in the matter of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, for the persons under the age group of 25-30 years, multiplier of 17 should be applied, but the Claims Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 18 and prays to dismiss the Appeal.

¶26

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through award impugned carefully.

¶27

Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Claimants has not disputed that the monthly income of the deceased at the time of incident was Rs.12,000/- p.a which was recorded at para-28 of the award and submitted that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed 15% towards future prospects whereas, the same ought to have been 50% of the actual salary in view of the National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (supra)

¶28

5

¶29

and as such, for the annual income of Rs.1,44,000/-, by adding 50% towards future prospects further, the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 18, taking into consideration the pension slip (Ex.P-6) i.e. the date of birth of the deceased as 08.01.1981 and the same was undisputed, therefore, on the date of incident, the deceased was 29 years old as per the law laid down in the matter of Sarla Verma (supra), for the age group of 25-30 years, multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied. The Claims Tribuanl has awarded Rs.50,000/- under the head loss of consortium to the wife and a lumpsum amount of Rs.50,000/- for loss of love and affection and an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate as the deceased left 2 minor children and his wife behind, therefore, in view of the judgment rendered in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), for loss of consortium, Rs.40,000/- and for loss of filial consortium for both children Rs.80,000/- i.e. Rs.40,000/- each more has to be awarded.

¶30

For funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- which was awarded appears to be just and proper. For loss of estate and loss of love and affection, a lumpsum amount was awarded @ Rs.35,000/whereas, an amount of Rs.15,000/- should have been awarded under the head loss of estate. Admittedly, the annual income of the deceased is Rs.1,44,000/- and for future prospects, by adding 50% to it, it comes to Rs.72,000/- totalling to Rs.2,16,000/- out of which,

¶31

6

¶32

deducting 1/3rd amount i.e. Rs.72,000/-, it comes to Rs.1,44,000/and by adding multiplier of 17 to it, it comes to Rs.24,48,000/-. For loss of consortium to wife and two minor children, by adding Rs.1,20,000/-, for funeral expenses, by adding Rs.15,000/- and for loss of estate, by adding Rs.15,000/-, it comes to Rs.25,98,000/-. The Claimants would thus be entitled to a total sum of Rs.25,98,000/- instead of Rs.20,87,200/- (Rs.25,98,000/- - Rs.20,87,200/- = 5,10,800/-) as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till its realization.

¶33

The enhanced amout of Rs.5,10,800/- along with interest shall be paid by the Insurance Company within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶34

The Appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated herein above.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶37

Priya

Smt. Sunita Ekka v. Manoj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sunita Ekka v. Manoj Kumar

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

Jagdish Prasad Bansal Vs Laxmin Bai and Ors.

Santoshi Vs Shakuntala Devi

Smt. Sukhmaniya Vs Vikas Kumar Paikara

Smt. Kalpana Vs Deleted Presiding Officer as per honble court order dated 01/02/2017

Dharam Lal And Ors. Vs Risdihin @ Safari Bai now Died Through Her Leagal Representatives And Ors.

State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. Vs M/s Alok Infotech Private Limited And Ors.