Partly allowed

Sumaykar v. Kamleshwar

Chhattisgarh HC20 Jun 2024MAC/273/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation to Rs.23,72,161 by reassessing the deceased's yearly income at Rs.2,73,890 based on income tax returns, adding 15% future prospects, and adjusting dependency calculations against the previously awarded Rs.14,40,000.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs.9,32,161 awarded with 6% per annum interest; funds invested in FDR for minor appellant.

Sumaykar Vs Kamleshwar — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 273 of 2018

¶5

1. Sumay Kar S/o Late Devendrakar Aged About 19 Years R/o Shatabdi Nagar Telibandha Raipur Tahsil And DistrictRaipur, Chhattisgarh. ....................(Claimants).

¶6

2. Suyas Kar, Aged About 17 Years, S/o Late Devendrakar. Minor Through Her Legal Guardian Brother Appellant No. 1 Suyaskar S/o Late Devendrakar. R/o Shatabdi Nagar Telibandha Raipur Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

---- Appellants/Claimants.

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. Kamleshwar S/o Shiv Kumar Aged About 21 Years R/o Village- Maheshwerpur Vaishnavpara Thana Jainager District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. .................... .(Driver of The Offending Vehicle Bolero No. C. G. 04/ H. D. / 6986) .

¶10

2. Smt. Usha Sonwani W/o Charan Singh Sonwani R/o House No. D/ 31 Near Rohinipuram Talab D. D. Nagar DistrictRaipur, Chhattisgarh. ....................... .(Owner of The Offending Vehicle Bolero No. C. G. 04/ H. D. / 6986) .

¶11

3. Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager Address- 3rd Floor Lal Ganga Shopping Mal G.E. Road Raipur, DistrictRaipur, Chhattisgarh. .......................... (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Bolero No. C. G. 04/ H. D. / 6986) ---- Respondents

¶12

For Appellants : Ms. Ruchi Nagar appears on behalf of Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Adv.

¶13

For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Adv. along with Ms. Shrejal Gupta, Adv.

¶14

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

¶15

21.06.2024

¶16

1. This Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short M.V. Act) challenging the award dated 30.08.2017 passed in Claims Case No.702/2015 by Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur(C.G.). By the impugned award, against claim of Rs.48,50,000/-, the

¶17

¶18

learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.14,40,000/- in favour of appellants/claimants on account of death of deceased/Devendra Kar in an accident that had occured on 20.04.2014 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle/Bolero bearing registration No.CG 04 HD 6986 driven by respondent No.1 and owned by respondent No.2 and insured with the insurance company/respondent No.3.

¶19

1. As per pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was aged 50 years, working as a managing editor in Jandhara Press, Raipur, earning Rs.35,000/- per month. Appellants being sons of the deceased were dependent upon the income of the deceased.

¶20

1. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte and did not file written statement. Respondent No.2 filed written statement and denied the averments. Respondent No.3 also denied the averments and pleaded that at the time of accident, driver of the offending vehicle/Bolero was not possessing effective and valid driving license.

¶21

1. The learned Tribunal framed the issues and after appreciation of evidence and material available on record awarded the compensation as stated above.

¶22

1. Ms. Nagar, counsel for the appellants submits that income of the deceased has wrongly been assessed. She also submits that future prospects has not been added, other admissible heads is required to be added adequately. Thus compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal deserves to be modified and the same be enhanced, accordingly.

¶23

1. Per contra , Mr. Shukla & Ms. Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3 support the award and submit that income of the deceased has not been proved. The learned Tribunal, considering the evidence, has awarded just compensation, therefore, the finding may not be disturbed in this Appeal.

¶24

¶25

1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶26

The deceased was said to be working as a Managing Editor in Jandhara Press, Raipur. Appellants/claimants claimed his income to be Rs.35,000/- per month and examined one witness who has proved the salary certificate of the deceased. Income tax return of the deceased was also filed and witness from Income Tax Department has duly proved it. According to the income tax return (Exhibit-P/9), the yearly income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.2,73,890/-. The learned Tribunal assessed monthly income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- which appears to be on the lower side and considering the evidence available on record, particularly the income tax return, this Court would assess the yearly income of the deceased as Rs.2,73,890/-. Further considering that the deceased was aged around 51 years and was a salaried employee, therefore, Future Prospects @15% is required to be added. This Court is computing the compensation as below:-

¶27

S.N.	Particular	Awarded by this Court
1.	Yearly Income of the deceased	2,73,890/-
2.	Future prospects @ 15%	41,083/-
3.	Total yearly Income	3,14,973/-
4.	Income tax(3,14,973-6,497)	3,08,476/-
5.	Personal Expenditure (1/3th)	3,08,476/3=1,02,825/-
6.	Net Income(3,08,476-1,02,825)	2,05,651/-
7.	Multiplier of 11 applied to assess total loss of dependency	22,62,161/-
8.	Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate	30,000/-
9.	parental consortium(40,000 each)	80,000/-
10.	Total compensation	23,72,161/-
11.	Total compensation- already awarded= Additional award	23,72,161- 14,40,000=9,32,161/-

¶28

1. For the foregoing reasons, the amount of compensation of Rs.14,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.23,72,161/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of

¶29

¶30

Rs.14,40,000/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional award of Rs. 9,32,161/-. The additional award shall carry interest @6% per annum from the date of this order.

¶31

1. On deposit being made, 40% of the total amount be invested in the name of Appellant No.1/Sumaykar as FDR in a nationalized bank for two years. 40% of the total amount be invested in the name of Appellant No.2/Suyaskar in a nationalized bank for two years and the remaining amount be disbursed to Appellant No.1 and 2 in equal share.

¶32

1. In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed.

¶33

Sd/(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶34

Avinash

Sumaykar v. Kamleshwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumaykar v. Kamleshwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ishwar Kamar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/s Manmath Nath Kundu and Sons Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial Tax and Anors

M/s Manmath Nath Kundu and Sons Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial Tax Anors

Bhagirathi Nisad Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Himanshu Bhuarya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Sant Gases, Vs the State of Chhattisgarh