Smt. Mamani Vishwas Vs Raju Ram Yadav

3. The Branch Manager, The New I	ndia Assurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office,
Jagdalpur, District Bastar, CG	(Insurer of vehicle)
	---Respondents
For appellants -	Shri Pravin Tulsyan, Advocate
For respondents No. 3 -	Shri Quamrul Aziz, Advocate

¶17

Order on Board by Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶18

19/02/2024:

¶19

2

¶20

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act (for short “MV Act”) is against the impugned award dated 06.11.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short “Tribunal”) Bastar, Place Jagdalpur, CG, in Claim Case No. 09/2018.

¶21

This is an appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount for the accidental death of Pranav Vishwas who at that time was aged about 33 years and driver by occupation. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 19,44,880/as compensation as against the claimed one Rs. 14,60,000/-. Hence this appeal.

¶22

Counsel for the appellants submits that the assessment of the income of the deceased is on the lower side and needs enhancement. He submits that though the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month but the Tribunal has taken it at Rs. 9,300/- and thus committed an illegality in so doing. Same, according to him, is the position with the amount awarded on other heads also. He further submits that Rs. 40,000/- have been awarded as consortium to appellant No.1 – the wife alone whereas in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 , all the appellants are entitled to get consortium.

¶23

Counsel for respondent No.3 however supports the award under challenge. He submits that the income taken by the Tribunal is based on the evidence on record including the evidence of the employer, and therefore the same cannot be said to be on the lower side.

¶24

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶25

Income aspect of the matter appears to be based on the evidence available on record including the statement of the employer of the deceased and therefore this contention of counsel for the appellants is rejected. Of course, in view of the judgment in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd . (supra)

¶26

3

¶27

all the claimants/appellants herein should have been awarded consortium befitting to the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, appellants No. 2 to 4 are held entitled to get consortium known by different nomenclatures to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- each totaling to Rs. 1,20,000/-. Let this amount be paid to the respective appellants in equal proportion within sixty days from today, but without any interest. Rest of the award to stand as it is.

¶28

Appeal thus allowed in part.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶31

Jyotishi

Smt. Mamani Vishwas v. Raju Ram Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mamani Vishwas v. Raju Ram Yadav

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

Umesh Bhardwaj Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suresh Kumar Sahu Vs Ramsakha

Mohni Bai Vs C. Murgan

Chheduram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Indira Bai Netam Vs Doctor Gaurav Ahluwaliya

Smt. Shilochani Thakur Vs Sonu Sonkar