Partly allowed

Dhanesh Mahla v. C. Murgan

Chhattisgarh HC14 Feb 2024MAC/1916/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court condoned a significant delay in filing an appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act. It recalculated compensation for the death of Vikram Mahla, finding the lower court under-awarded. The court allowed the appeal in part, increasing compensation to approx. Rs. 10.06 lakhs and directed investment of funds via fixed deposits.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs. 04,62,800 granted; Rs. 2 lakh each invested in fixed deposits for Appellants 1 and 2; Rs. 50k for Appellant 3; balance paid by cheque.

Dhanesh Mahla Vs C. Murgan — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

M.A.(C) No. 1916 of 2018

¶4

Dhanesh Mahla, S/o Pusuram aged about 45 Years, R/o Village Bharritola, Police Station And Tahsil Maanpur, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶5

Suhaga Bai, W/o Dhanesh Mahla, aged about 40 Years, R/o Village Bharritola, Police Station And Tahsil Maanpur, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶6

Kripalu, S/o Dhanesh Mahla, aged about 16 Years, (Minor), Through Natural Guardian Appellant No. 1 Dhanesh Mahla, S/o Pusuram, R/o Village Bharritola, Police Station And Tahsil Maanpur, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Claimants)

¶7

--- Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

C. Murgan, S/o Sennapan, aged about 27 Years, R/o Village Omaiynoor, Postmartem - Karapattu, Tahsil - Uttaragiri, District Krishnagiri (Tamilnadu), (Driver)

¶10

Satish Kumar, S/o Segortayyan, aged about 27 Years, R/o 26, 2nd Main Road, K.P.N. Stegan (Banglore) (Owner)

¶11

The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, 146, N. Kumar Complex, Salai - 637211, Tiruchengode (Tamilnadu) (Insurance Company)

¶12

--- Respondents

¶13

For Appellants : Shri Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Shri Raj Awasthi, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

15/02/2024

¶17

1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2018 which is an application for condonation of delay of 825 days in filing the appeal.

¶18

2. For the reason mentioned in that application and also considering that Motor Vehicle Act is benevolent legislation, this court is inclined to allow this application.

¶19

3. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

¶20

4. However, the appellants shall not be entitled to interest for the period of delay in the event the enhancement is made by this Court.

¶21

5. Heard on Admission.

¶22

6. Admit.

¶23

7. With the consent of the parties heard finally.

¶24

-2-

¶25

8. Challenge in this appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) by the appellants/claimants challenging it to an award dated 03/05/2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No. - 166 / 2014.

¶26

9. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs.18,80,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.05,44,000/- in favour of the appellants / claimants.

¶27

10. The appellants / claimants filed an application under section 166 of the MV Act, claiming above stated compensation on account of death of deceased Vikram Mahla in accident that took place on 14/12/2013 by rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.KA/01/C/5772 by respondent No. 1 / driver, owned by respondent No.2 / owner and insured with the respondent No. 3 / Insurance Company.

¶28

11. As per pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was aged about 26 years, and was earning Rs.10,000/- being a Labour.

¶29

12. The claim application was resisted by the respondent No.3 on various grounds including taking a plea that there is violation of terms and condition of the Insurance Policy. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

¶30

13. Learned Tribunal after appreciation of evidence found monthly income of the deceased to Rs.6000/- and awarded the above stated compensation.

¶31

14. Learned Counsel for the appellants / claimants submits that the deceased was aged about 26 years and he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, therefore income was wrongly assessed, compensation on all other conventional head is also on lower side.

¶32

15. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 supports the award and submits that the appellants / claimants could not prove the income of the deceased and the Tribunal has awarded just compensation.

¶33

16. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶34

17. Tribunal on the meticulous examination of the evidence available on record, found monthly income of the deceased Rs.6000/- per month which appears to be correct, hence it is affirmed.

¶35

-3-

¶36

18. 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 130 , the claimant is entitled for compensation in the

¶37

following manner:-

¶38

S.No.	Head		Calculation
1.	Monthly Income		Rs.6000/-
2.	40% future prospect		Rs.2400/-
3.	Total Monthly Income		Rs.8,400/-
4.	Yearly Income		Rs.1,00,800/- (8400 X 12)
5.	1/2 deduction personal expenses	for	Rs.50,400/- (100800 – 50,400 )
6.	Multiplier of 17 to applied	be	Rs.08,56,800/- (50,400 X 17)
7.	Towards loss of est and funeral expenses	ate	Rs.30,000/-
8.	Filial consortium		Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/- to each appellant)
	Total compensation		Rs. 10,06,800/-

¶39

19. Since the tribunal has already awarded Rs.05,44,000/-, after deducting the same from the above amount, the claimants / appellants are held entitled for additional compensation of Rs.04,62,800/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of appeal i.e. 27/11/2018. The amount shall be deposited within a period of 60 days from the date of copy of receipt of this order.

¶40

20. Rs.2,00,000/- (two lakh) each invested in the name of appellant No.1 and 2 as fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank for a period of 3 years. Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand) be invested in the name of appellant No.3 as fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank for a period of 3 years. Remaining amount shall be paid to appellant No.2 by bank transaction / account payee cheque.

¶41

21. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the award impugned to the above extent.

¶42

Sd/ /--

¶43

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶44

Ashish

Dhanesh Mahla v. C. Murgan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanesh Mahla v. C. Murgan

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

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Banjami Linga

Girdhari Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Sahu Vs Vyash Narayan

Mohni Bai Vs C. Murgan

Suresh Kumar Sahu Vs Ramsakha

Umesh Bhardwaj Vs State of Chhattisgarh