Partly allowed

Mohni Bai v. C. Murgan

Chhattisgarh HC14 Feb 2024MAC/1917/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed an appeal against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, condoning a delay of 824 days due to minor status and benevolent legislation. The court affirmed the Tribunal's income assessment but enhanced the compensation to Rs. 14,79,600/- based on Supreme Court precedents, ordering additional payment with interest.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; award affirmed with modification of total compensation to Rs. 14,79,600/-; additional Rs. 4,75,600/- payable with interest at 6% p.a.; specific directions issued for investment

Mohni Bai Vs C. Murgan — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

M.A.(C) No. 1917 of 2018

¶4

Mohni Bai, Wd/o Late Bajrangi @ Deepak, aged about 28 Years, R/o Village Bharritola, Police Station And Tahsil - Maanpur, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶5

Ku. Hemlata, D/o Late Bajrangi @ Deepak, aged about 13 Years, Through Natural Guardian Appellant No. 1 Mohni Bai Wd/o Bajrangi @ Deepak, R/o Village Bharritola, Police Station And Tahsil - Maanpur, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶6

Rahul, S/o Late Bajrangi @ Deepak, aged about 10 Years, Through Natural Guardian Appellant No. 1 Mohni Bai Wd/o Bajrangi @ Deepak, R/o Village Bharritola, Police Station And Tahsil - Maanpur, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶7

Laxman, S/o Late Bajrangi @ Deepak, aged about 7 Years, Through Natural Guardian Appellant No. 1 Mohni Bai Wd/o Bajrangi @ Deepak, R/o Village Bharritola, Police Station And Tahsil - Maanpur, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Hero Bai, W/o Govind Ram, aged about 50 Years, R/o Village Bharritola, Police Station And Tahsil - Maanpur, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Govind Ram, S/o Late Vishal, aged about 55 Years, R/o Village Bharritola, Police Station And Tahsil - Maanpur, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶10

--- Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

--- Respondents

¶16

For Appellants : Shri Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Shri Raj Awasthi, Advocate

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

15/02/2024

¶20

1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2018 which is an application for condonation of delay of

¶21

-2-

¶22

824 days in filing the appeal.

¶23

2. For the reason mentioned in that application and also considering that appellant No. 2 to 4 are minor and Motor Vehicle Act is benevolent legislation, this court is inclined to allow this application.

¶24

3. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

¶25

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

¶26

5. Heard on Admission.

¶27

6. Admit.

¶28

7. With the consent of the parties heard finally.

¶29

8. Challenge in this appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) by the appellants/claimants is against the award dated 03/05/2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, District

¶30

Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No. - 165 / 2014.

¶31

9. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs.19,30,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,04,000/- as compensation in favour of the appellants / claimants against Insurance company.

¶32

10. The claim application was filed under section 166 of the MV Act, claiming above stated compensation on account of death of deceased Bajrangi @ Deepak in an unfortunate 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.

¶33

11. As per pleadings of the claim application, deceased was aged about 33 years, working as Labour in the offending Truck and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month.

¶34

12. The claim application was resisted by the respondent No.3 on various grounds including taking a plea that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

¶35

13. Learned Tribunal on the basis of above broad pleadings framed issues and after appreciation of material available on record, decided the same in favour of the appellants / claimants and awarded the above stated compensation in favour of the appellant / claimant and against the respondents.

¶36

-3-

¶37

14. Learned Counsel for the appellants / claimants submits that the deceased was aged about 33 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 which require suitable enhancement.

¶38

15. Learned counsel for respondents supports the award and submits that the appellants / claimants could not prove the income of deceased and the Tribunal has awarded just compensation on basis of evidence available on record which does not require any interference.

¶39

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

¶40

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.

¶41

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 following

¶42

manner:-

¶43

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.	1/4 deduction for personal expenses	Rs.75,600/- (100800 – 25,200 )
6.	Multiplier of 16 to be applied	Rs.12,09,600/- (75,600 X 16)
7.	Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, Spousal consortium	Rs.70,000/-

¶44

-4-

¶45

8.	Filial consortium	Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.40,000/- to appellant)	each
	Total compensation	Rs. 14,79,600/-

¶46

19. Since the tribunal has already awarded Rs.10,04,000/-, after deducting the same from the above amount, the claimants / appellants are held entitled for additional compensation of Rs.04,75,600/- 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.

¶47

20. Rs. 75,000/- (seventy five thousand) each shall be invested as FDR for 3 years in a nationalized bank in the name of appellant No. 2 to 4. Rs 50,000/(fifty thousand) each shall be paid to appellant No. 5 and 6 Rs.1,25,000/(One lakh twenty five thousand) be invested in the name of appellant No.1 as fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank for a period of 3 years. Remaining amount shall be paid to appellant No.1 by bank transaction / account payee cheque.

¶48

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

¶49

Sd/---

¶50

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶51

Ashish

Mohni Bai v. C. Murgan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohni Bai 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

Dhanesh Mahla Vs C. Murgan

Suresh Kumar Sahu Vs Ramsakha

Umesh Bhardwaj Vs State of Chhattisgarh