Partly allowed

Brijlal Korram v. Meraj

Chhattisgarh HC22 Apr 2024MAC/270/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross appeals over quantum of compensation for death of a 16-year-old student in a road accident. The court recomputed income using minimum wages for skilled labour, applied 50% personal expense deduction and 40% future prospects, enhancing compensation by Rs. 7,92,000/- with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs. 7,92,000/- with 6% interest from date of claim application; award modified accordingly.

Brijlal Korram Vs Meraj — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 738 of 2024

¶5

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Branch Manager Branch Office, Laxman Avenue Maharani Hospital Road Jagdalpur District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh, Through Legal Hub Incharge Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Opposite Rajeev Plaza Near Old Bus Stand Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Co.)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Brijlal Korram S/o Khursu Korram Aged About 47 Years R/o Darapara Ward No. 2 Bijapur, District - Bijapur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants)

¶9

Smt. Sonmati Korram W/o Brijal Korram Aged About 43 Years R/o Darapara Ward No. 2 Bijapur, District - Bijapur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Meraj S/o Nisar Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Kanesta Rangoli District - Pratapgarh (U.P.), (Driver), C/o Vehice Owner, Smt. Renu Malviya R/o. Main Road Bus Stand Dantewada, Dantewada District South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Smt. Renu Malviya W/o Manoj Kumar Malviya Aged About 27 Years R/o Main Road Bus Stand Dantewada, Dantewada District - South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. (Owner)

¶12

---- Respondent

¶13

MAC No. 270 of 2024

¶14

Brijlal Korram S/o Shri Khursu Korram Aged About 47 Years Caste Madiya, R/o Darapara, Ward No. 02, Bijapur, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

Smt. Sonmati Korram W/o Shri Brijlal Korram Aged About 43 Years Caste Madiya, R/o Darapara, Ward No. 02, Bijapur, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

---- Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

Meraj S/o Nisar Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Kanesta, Rangauli, District Pratapgarh U.P. (Vehicle Driver), Through Vehicle Owner Smt. Renu Malviya, R/o Main Road Bus Stand Dantewada, Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.

¶19

Smt. Renu Malviya W/o Shri Maoj Kumar Malviya Aged About 27 Years R/o Main Road Bus Stand Dantewada, Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.(Vehicle Owner)

¶20

Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Lakshman Avenue, Maharani Hospital Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company)

¶21

---- Respondents

¶22

-2-

¶23

Mr. Praveen Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate, for Appellant in MAC 738/2024 and also appearing for Res. No. 3 in MAC 270/2024

¶24

Mr.Shikhar Shukla, Advocate, for Appellant in MAC 270/2024 and also appearing for Respondent Nos 1 & 2 in MAC 738/2024

¶25

S.B. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on board

¶26

23.04.2024.

¶27

1. These two appeals are being filed against a common award dated 13/12/2023 and therefore, are being decided together.

¶28

2. The MAC No. 738 of 2024 is filed by the non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company challenging the quantum of the award on the ground that the tribunal has not deducted any amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the deceased was 16 years old Bachelor student and the amount of compensation may be calculated after deducting the amount of 50% towards his persons expenses.

¶29

3. The MAC No. 270 of 2024 is being filed by a complainants/ appellants for enhancement of the compensation amount on account of death of their daughter Ku. Chetana Kurram.

¶30

4. Both these appeals are arising out of the award dated 13/12/2023 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dantewada, Dist- South Bastar in Claim Case No. 6/2022 whereby an amount of Rs. 8,41,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants as compensation on account of death of their daughter Ku. Chetana Kurram on a motor accident.

¶31

5. Brief facts of the case are that, on 16/11/2021, when the deceased Ku. Chetana Kurram was coming from Jagdalpur to Bijapur in Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. CG 18 C 2207, on the

¶32

-3-

¶33

national highway 63, near Tirthum Patelpara, the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. CG 18 G 9182 came from opposite side and dashed the Scorpio vehicle by rash and negligent driving. By the said accident, the deceased Ku. Chetana Kurram has died on the spot. The FIR of Crime No. 90/2021 was registered at Police Station Kodenar.

¶34

6. On account of death of their daughter, the claimants have filed the claim case before the learned Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, with the pleading that the deceased was a student of Class-12. She was helping in the grocery shop of her father by which she was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and helped the family by the same. The monitory compensation of Rs.17,33,000/- was claimed before the Claims Tribunal in the claimed application, on various heads.

¶35

7. The non-applicant Nos 1 & 2 that is the driver and owner of the offending vehicle have not contested the case and remained exparte throughout the proceeding.

¶36

8. The non-applicant No. 3 Insurance Company has filed their written statement and submitted that on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. The offending vehicle was not having fitness certificate at the time of accident and therefore the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

¶37

9. The learned Claims Tribunal have framed five issues. The claimants have examined two witnesses in their support. After appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties, the Claims Tribunal has awarded the total Rs. 8,41,000/- in favour of the claimants as

¶38

-4-

¶39

compensation and liability has been fastened upon the Insurance Company to pay the same. While assessing the compensation amount, the Claims Tribunal has considered the yearly income of the deceased as Rs. 40,000/- and multiplier of 18 has been applied. Since, the deceased was bachelor and therefore after taking into consideration the increment on the amount towards the conventional head have been awarded and concluded that the claimants are entitled for the total compensation of Rs. 8,41,000/- which is under challenged in these appeals.

¶40

10. Learned counsel for the appellant in MAC No. 738 of 2024 would argue that the deceased was a bachelor and therefore, 50% amount of the total income should be deducted towards her personal expenses as provided in the judgment of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in ( 2009) 6 SCC 121 and in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors reported in ( 2017) 16 SCC 680 and after deducting 50% amount from her personal expenses, the appropriate amount may be awarded to the claimants.

¶41

11. In the MAC No. 270 of 2024, the learned counsel for the appellant/ claimants has submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly calculated the compensation and the minimum wages prevailing on the date of accident should have been taken into consideration to determine the monthly income of the deceased, although, she was aged about 16 years but in view of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kajal Vs Jagdish Chand reported in AIR 2020 SC 776 the deceased may be considered to be a skilled labour and the prevailing minimum wages

¶42

-5-

¶43

on the date of accident may be considered to be her monthly income and the amount should have been awarded accordingly.

¶44

12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶45

13. In MAC No. 270 of 2024, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has objected the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and has submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased as Rs. 40,000/- per year because she in fact was not employed in any occupation but she only a student and it is afterthought pleading that she helped in grocery shop of her father and therefore the consideration of the learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely justified and the appellant is not entitled for enhancement of any compensation amount rather it should be deducted towards her personal expenses.

¶46

14. The accident and the liability to pay compensation by the Insurance Company is not in dispute in the present case. The only dispute with respect to the quantum which is to be awarded in favour of the claimants.

¶47

15. From perusal of the impugned award dated 13/12/2023, it appears that there is no deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased from her assessed monthly income. In the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) in Para 31, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are parents, the deduction should be of 50% from her personal expenses. Para 31 of the Sarla Verma (Supra) Case is as below:-

¶48

“31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as

¶49

-6-

¶50

personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.”

¶51

16. In case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr .

¶52

Reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Para 43.6 as under:-

¶53

“43.6 Insofar as deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, it is directed that the Tribunals shall ordinarily follow the standards prescribed in paras 30, 31 & 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma (Supra) subject to the observations made by us in para 41 above.”

¶54

17. In case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors .

¶55

reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) in Para-31, have been approved in Pranay Sethi (Supra) case in Para 59.5 which reads as under :-

¶56

“59.5 – For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma (Supra) which we have reproduced hereinbefore.”

¶57

-7-

¶58

18. Thus, the contention made by learned counsel for the appellant in MAC No. 738 of 2024 has force in their argument and accordingly, I hold that the amount of compensation is to be determined after deducting the 50% amount towards personal expenses of deceased.

¶59

19. So far as, the just and appropriate compensation to the claimants is concerned, the tribunal has considered the yearly income of the deceased as Rs. 40,000/- whereas in case of Kajal (Supra) in Para 20 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

¶60

"20. Both the courts below have held that since the girl was a young child of 12 years only notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum can be taken into consideration. We do not think this is a proper way of assessing the future loss of income. This young girl after studying could have worked and would have earned much more than Rs.15,000/- per annum. Each case has to be decided on its own evidence but taking notional income to be Rs.15,000/- per annum is not at all justified. The appellant has placed before us material to show that the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman is Rs.4846/- per month. In our opinion this would be the minimum amount which she would have earned on becoming a major. Addition 40% for the future prospects, it works to be Rs.6784.40/per month, i.e. 81,412.80 per annum. Applying the multiplier of 18 it works out to Rs. 14,65,430.40, which is rounded off to Rs. 14,66,000/-."

¶61

20. In the present case, the deceased was a student of Class-12 and as per the pleading of the claimants, she was helping in the grocery shop of the claimants also. Thus, in view of the fact and evidence available on record and also in view of the Kajal (Supra) case the minimum wages for skilled labour prevailing on the date of accident is to be taken into consideration for determination of appropriate compensation to the claimants.

¶62

-8-

¶63

21. The incident is occurred on 16/11/2021 and at the time of accident, the minimum wages prevailing for skilled labour was Rs.10,710/- and looking to the pleading made by the claimants and as also in view of the minimum wages, this court is of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate to take Rs. 10,000/- per month as monthly income of the deceased at the time of accident and therefore, the amount of compensation is recomputed as below:-

¶64

S.No	Head & Calculation	Total in Rs.
1	Monthly income as per Minimum Wages	Rs. 10,000/-
2	Annual Income	Rs. 1,20,000/-
3	½ deduction under personal head	Rs. 60,000/-
4	Income after deduction under personal head	Rs. 60,000/-
5	Future prospects of 40% 60,000 X 40/100	Rs. 24,000/-
6	Annual income after deducting future prospects	Rs 84,000/-
7	Compensation on the head of loss of dependency after multiplying with 18 (multiplier 18 : 16 years)	Rs 84,000 X 18 Rs. 15,12,000/-
8	Total compensation Loss of dependency - Rs 15,12,000/- Consortium - Rs. 88,000/- Loss of Estate - Rs. 16,500/- Funeral Expenses - Rs. 16,500/-	Rs. 16,33,000/-
9	Total enhancement (16,33,000 – 8,41,000)	Rs. 7,92,000/-

¶65

22. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 16,33,000/- and after deduction of Rs.8,41,000/- as awarded by the claims tribunal, the amount enhanced is Rs. 7,92,000/-

¶66

23. In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed. Now the claimants are entitled for amount of Rs. 7,92,000/- in addition to what has already been awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The amount

¶67

-9-

¶68

enhanced by this Court shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated herein above. The rest of the condition of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶69

24. The enhanced amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company within further period of 60 days from today. The disbursement of of enhanced amount shall be in view of the Para 17 of the impugned award dated 13/12/2023.

¶70

25. Both the Appeals are partly allowed to the extent as indicated herein above.

¶71

26. No order as to costs.

¶72

Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶73

sagrika

Brijlal Korram v. Meraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijlal Korram v. Meraj

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

Yogendra @ Jugnu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mahesh Kumar Dhurandhar Vs Alok Sharma

Balram Bhagat Panda Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Yadumani Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Kumar Tiwari Vs Board Of Revenue

Pradeep Bhuiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh