Sarita Patel Vs Jugal Kishore Agrawal

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

M.A.(C) No. 264 of 2018

¶4

Sarita Patel, W/o Widow of Late Tirupati Patel, aged about 25 Years, R/o Ram Sagar Para, Korba, Tahsil Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. ....................(Claimants).

¶5

Smt. Chameli Patel, W/o Shri Chhatram Patel, aged about 54 Years, R/o Ram Sagar Para, Korba, Tahsil Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶6

Chhatram Patel, S/o Shri Murit Ram Patel, aged about 56 Years, R/o Ram Sagar Para, Korba, Tahsil Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶7

Ku. Arya Patel, aged about 05 Years, D/o Late Tirupati (Minor) Minors Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sarita Patel, Widow Of Late Tirupati Patel, Aged About 25 Years. R/o Ram Sagar Para, Korba, Tahsil Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Anmol Patel, aged about 15 Days (Minor), S/o Late Tirupati Patel, Minors Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sarita Patel, Widow Of Late Tirupati Patel, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ram Sagar Para, Korba, Tahsil Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶9

--- Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Jugal Kishore Agrawal, S/o Shri Rati Ram Agrawal, aged about 48 Years, R/o Main Road Katghora, Tahsil Katghora District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Owner and Driver of The Offending Motorcycle No. CG 12 / L- 2756). .....................(Non- Applicants)

¶12

I. C. I. C. I. Lambard General Insurance Company Limited, Through The Branch Manager I. C. I. C. I. Lambard General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Commercial Complex Floor, Dev Nagar Road, Near Hdfc Bank, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. .....................(Insurer Of The Offending Motorcycle No. CG 12/ L- 2756).

¶13

--- Respondents

¶14

For Appellants : Ms. Neelam Khan, Advocate appeared on behalf of Shri P.K.Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate.

¶15

-2-

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

12/02/2024

¶19

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) by the appellants / claimants against the award dated 31/10/2017 passed by II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba, District – Korba (C.G.) in Claim Case No.27/2015.

¶20

2. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs.42,50,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.17,92,800/- against the respondents on account of death of deceased Tirupati in a motor vehicular accident.

¶21

3. As per pleadings of the claim application filed an application under sections 166 of the MV Act, on 29/12/2014 at about 04:00pm evening deceased Tirupati along-with his friend had gone to Katghora and while returning from Korba on the way near Churi in an unfortunate accident, the driver of offending vehicle motorcycle bearing registration No.CG12/L/2756 by rash and negligent driving dashed the motorcycle of the deceased by over taking motorcycle of the deceased. Upon which deceased sustained severe injury and died during treatment. The driver / owner of the offending vehicle is respondent No. 1 and vehicle was insured with the respondent No.2 / Insurance company. The age of the deceased at the time of incident is 30 years and was earning Rs.14,000/- per month.

¶22

4. The claim application was resisted by the respondents on various grounds. The respondent No.2 / Insurance Company took a plea that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license.

¶23

5. The learned Tribunal framed issues and decided the same in favour of the appellants and awarded the above stated compensation.

¶24

-3-

¶25

6. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the deceased was a Mechanic (Dish Antenna) and was earning Rs.14,000/- per month, the amount awarded by learned Tribunal on the other head is also on lower side which requires enhancement by this Court.

¶26

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the award and submit that the appellants / claimants could not brought any cogent evidence on record to prove the income of the deceased, therefore just compensation has been awarded which does not require any interference.

¶27

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

¶28

9. The appellants / claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.14,000/- per month as Mechanic (Dish Antenna).

¶29

10. Considering the entire evidence available on record, particularly the evidence of AW/2 and the document Ex.P/15 to Ex.P/18, it is establisht that he was a skilled person. Looking to the number of the dependents, age of the appellant, nature of job, age of the deceased and date of accident, this court takes monthly income of deceased to Rs.10,000/-.

¶30

11. 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 , this court is reassessing the compensation in the

¶31

following manner :-

¶32

S.No.	Head	Calculation
1.	Monthly Income	Rs.10,000/-
2.	40% future prospect	Rs.4000/-
3.	Total Monthly Income	Rs.14,000/-
4.	Yearly Income	Rs.1,68,000/- (Rs.14000

¶33

-4-

¶34

		X 12 )
5.	1/4 deduction for personal expenses	Rs.1,26,000/- (1,68,000 - 42000)
6.	Multiplier of 16 to be applied	Rs.20,16,000/- (Rs.,1,26,000 x 16)
7.	Loss of Estate & Funeral Expenses, spousal consortium	Rs.70,000/-
8.	Filial Consortium	Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each appellant No.2 to 5)
Total co	mpensation	Rs.22,46,000/-

¶35

12. Since the tribunal has already awarded Rs.17,92,800/-, after deducting the same from the above amount, the claimants are held entitled for additional compensation of Rs.04,53,200/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application till realization. The amount shall be deposited within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶36

13. Rs.1,50,000/-(one lakh and fifty thousand) shall be invested in the name of appellant No.1 as fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank for a period of 3 years. Rs.50,000/-(fifty thousand) each shall be invested in the name of appellant No.2 and 3 as fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank for a period of 2 years and Rs.1,00,000/-(One lakh) each shall be invested in the name of appellant No.4 and 5 as fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank till they attain the age of majority. Remaining amount shall be paid to appellant No.1 by bank transaction / account payee cheque.

¶37

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

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶40

Ashish

Sarita Patel v. Jugal Kishore Agrawal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarita Patel v. Jugal Kishore Agrawal

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

Puniram Patle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukesh Khunte Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ganga Yadav Vs Punaram Yadav

Jitendra Pandey Vs Rajkumar Singh

Smt. Lata Devi Vs Karamjeet Singh

Vikash Tiwari Vs Nirmal Kumar Jain