Prahalad Sahu Vs Sudhir Sultaniya

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 252 of 2019

¶5

Prahalad Sahu S/o Late Terash Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Hasuwa, Police Station Gidhouri, District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

¶6

Jyoti Sahu W/o Prahalad Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Hasuwa, Police Station Gidhouri, District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

¶7

Minor Kunal Sahu S/o Prahalad Sahu Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Father Prahalad Sahu, R/o Village Hasuwa, Police Station Gidhouri, District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

¶8

---- Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Sudhir Sultaniya S/o Shri Gopal Prasad Sultaniya Aged About 33 Years R/o Sheorinarayan, Police Station And Tahsil Sheorinarayan, District - Janjir Champa Chhattisgarh. ---(Driver Of Offending Vehicle Car Bmw No. C.G.04-Ku-5151)

¶11

Prince Davar S/o Girdhar Singh Davar R/o Block No.11, Plate 204, Ashoka Ratna Shankar Nagar Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. --(Owner Of Offending Vehicle Car Bmw No. C.G.04-Ku-5151)

¶12

Insurance Company The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Madina Building Kachhari Chowk, Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. --(Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Car Bmw No. C.G.04-Ku-5151)

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

For Appellants : Shri A.D.Kuldeep, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Shri Pravin Tulsyan, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶16

Order On Board

¶17

07/02/2024

¶18

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V.Act’) has been filed against award dated 12/12/2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District – Balodabazar (CG) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.42/2018.

¶19

By the impugned award, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,05,000/- in favour of the claimants as compensation on account of death of Dhaarni

¶20

2

¶21

Sahu in an unfortunate accident that took place on 02/03/2018 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (BMW Car) bearing registration No.CG04-KU-5151 driven by respondent No.1/driver, owned by respondent No.2 / owner and insured with respondent No.3 / insurance company. The claimants are parents and minor brother of the deceased.

¶22

As per claim application, the deceased Dhaarni Sahu was aged about 5 years and she would have definitely succeeded in her life and after growing up, she would have contributed to the livelihood of her parents/claimants. Therefore, Rs.17,50,000/- was claimed. Respondent No.1 and 2 resisted the claim application. Respondent No.3/ insurer of the offending vehicle in the written statement pleaded that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving license.

¶23

Learned Tribunal after framing issues, decided those issues in favour of the appellants / claimants and awarded compensation as stated above.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellants / claimants submits that the law with regard to death of a child is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and anr. v. Lala and ors., (2014) 1 SCC 244 and Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali and anr. v. Shyam Kishore Murmu and anr., (2022) 1 SCC 317. He submits that the amount of compensation on other heads is also on the lower side.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 supports the award passed by the learned Tribunal and submits that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, just compensation has been awarded.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records.

¶27

In the light of judgments passed in the case of Kurvan Ansari (supra) and Kishan Gopal (supra), this Court feels that ends of justice would be served by awarding Rs.5 lakhs to the appellants / claimants.

¶28

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and amount of Rs.5 lakhs is awarded to the appellants / claimants. After deducting Rs.3,05,000/- as awarded by learned Tribunal, enhancement comes to Rs.1,95,000/- .

¶29

3

¶30

Respondent No.3/insurance company shall pay the amount of Rs.1,95,000/within a period of 60 days with 6% interest from the date of claim application. After the amount of compensation is deposited by respondent No.3/insurance company, learned Tribunal shall pass appropriate order for apportionment, investment and disbursement.

¶31

10.The appeal thus partly allowed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge

¶34

Deepti

Prahalad Sahu v. Sudhir Sultaniya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prahalad Sahu v. Sudhir Sultaniya

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

Smt. Annu Singh Vs Vinod Singh

Deepa Sidar Vs Liladhar Prasad Chandra

Smt. Jayantri Bai Markam Vs Thakurram Yadav

Dinesh Kumar Vaishnav Vs Shatruhan Khairwar

Smt. Radhika Devi Vs Jaisingh

Jitu @ Vijender Yadav Vs Chitaranjan Malik