Dismissed¶26

Smt. Kulwinder Kaur v. Rupesh Kumar Rao

Chhattisgarh HC7 May 2024MAC/274/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; MAC No. 274 of 2018; marked NAFR; decided 08.05.2024; single judge: Sachin Singh Rajput. Enhancement appeal against MACT Raipur (Claim Case No.60/2016) award of Rs.10,32,200/- (claim Rs.25,00,000/-) for death of Kumari Shiran in 23.09.2015 truck accident (vehicle No. W.B. 23 D 0056; driver Rupesh Kumar Rao; owner Mohan Lal Soni; insurer Reliance General Insurance Company Limited). Key themes: assessment of notional monthly income of student/young deceased (Rs.6,000/- adopted vs Rs.12,000/- claimed), rejection of uncorroborated salary certificate, 40% future prospects, adequacy of compensation, appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the claimants' prayer for enhancement of compensation was rejected and the tribunal's award was not interfered with. ¶26

Smt. Kulwinder Kaur Vs Rupesh Kumar Rao — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the claimants' prayer for enhancement of compensation was rejected and the tribunal's award was not interfered with.

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal, assessing the deceased's monthly income at Rs.6,000/-, is just or requires enhancement based on the claimed monthly income of Rs.12,000/-.

¶22

Court's answer

The tribunal's rejection of the salary certificate showing a monthly income of Rs.12,000/- was based on proper appreciation of evidence, since no other document substantiating the existence of Central College or the deceased's profession/income was brought on record; it requires no interference.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The tribunal's assessment of the deceased's monthly income at Rs.6,000/- is just considering her age, and with addition of 40% future prospects and amounts on other heads, the awarded compensation stands justified.

¶26

Key takeaways

The findings recorded by the tribunal are just and based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not require interference by this Court; therefore, the appeal fails.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MAC No. 274 of 2018), High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, decided 08.05.2024 by Justice Sachin Singh Rajput — Enhancement of compensation sought for the death of the claimants' daughter (deceased Kumari Shiran, pleaded as aged about 23 years) in an accident dated 23.09.2015 caused by rash and negligent driving of truck No. W.B. 23 D 0056 — Tribunal (IIIrd MACT, Raipur) by award dated 27.11.2017 in Claim Case No.60/2016 awarded Rs.10,32,200/- against a claim of Rs.25,00,000/-, assessing monthly income at Rs.6,000/- with 40% future prospects — Claimants' salary certificate of Rs.12,000/- per month unsupported by any other document proving the existence of Central College or the profession/income; its rejection held based on proper appreciation — Tribunal's findings held just, based on proper appreciation of evidence and not requiring interference — Appeal dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 274 of 2018

¶4

1 - Smt. Kulwinder Kaur W/o Harjeet Singh Panaich, Aged About 42 Years House Wife,

¶5

2 - Harjeet Singh Panaich, Sardar Balwant Singh, Aged About 46 Years

¶6

Both are R/o Udya Society, Near Ayappa Mandir, Post Tatibandh, P. S. Amanka, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,

¶7

---- Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 - Rupesh Kumar Rao Rambabu Rao, Aged About 32 Years Occupation Truck Driver, R/o Kumar Road Cariers, Chhokranala, P. S. Telibandha, Post Ravigram, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle Bearing No. W. B. 23d 0056),

¶10

2 - Mohan Lal Soni, Late J. Sony, Truck Owner And Transporter Age Not Mentioned R/o 50/1/b, Bihari Lal Ghosh Road, North 24, Pargana, Kolkatta, 700051 West Bengal, Owner Of The Vehicle Bearing No. W. B. 23d 0056),

¶11

3 - The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, In Front Of Dhupar Petrol Pump, G. E. Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For the Appellants : Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Adv. For respondent No.3 : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha & Mr. Prashant Sahu, Adv.

¶14

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

¶15

08.05.2024

¶16

1. Challenge in this appeal is to an award dated 27.11.2017 passed by the Court of III^rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) in Claim Case No.60/2016. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs.25,00,000/-, the learned tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.10,32,200/- in favour of appellants/claimants on account of death of their daughter deceased Kumari Shiran in an accident that occurred on 23.09.2015 by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle truck bearing Registration No. W.B. 23 D 0056 driven by respondent No.1/driver, owned by respondent

¶17

¶18

No.2/owner and insured with insurance company/respondent No.3.

¶19

1. As per pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was aged about 23 years and earning an income of Rs.12,000/- by doing work in the Central College. She was studying B. Com and also pursuing the course of Fashion Designing. Therefore, aforesaid compensation was claimed.

¶20

1. The claim application was resisted by the insurance company taking a plea that the offending vehicle was driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy.

¶21

1. The learned tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed 4 issues and decided the same in favour of claimants and awarded the above stated compensation.

¶22

1. Learned counsel for appellants/claimants submits that the compensation is on lower side and her monthly income was Rs.12,000 whereas tribunal assessed her monthly salary to Rs.6000/-, therefore, suitable enhancement may be made.

¶23

1. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company supports the award and submits that according to testimonial of the deceased issued from CBSC, her date of birth is 14.10.1997 and date of accident is 23.09.2015 meaning thereby on the date of accident she has not completed 18 years of age and considering the fact that barring a certificate, no other document to substantiate the profession and income was brought on record, therefore, issue was likely rejected by the tribunal and just compensation has been awarded.

¶24

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record.

¶25

¶26

Appellants/claimants by examining the witnesses and by placing on record the salary certificate amounting to Rs.12,000/- tried to prove that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. Apart from this, no other document to substantiate the existence of Central College was brought on record. Even as per pleadings and statement she was studying in B.Com. The assessment of rejection of certificate based on proper appreciation and does not requires any interference. The tribunal found the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.6,000/- which appears to be just looking to her age and by adding future prospects of 40% and also adding amount on other heads awarded the aforesaid compensation. Therefore, the finding recorded by tribunal appears to be just, based on proper appreciation of evidence and does not require any interference by this Court, therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

¶27

Parul

Smt. Kulwinder Kaur v. Rupesh Kumar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kulwinder Kaur v. Rupesh Kumar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deleted (Etwa Ram Minj) (Died) Vs Krishna Kumar Singh

Smt. Bhan Bai Vs Akash Goyal

Smt. Mankunwar Vs Sah Bhumi Sanrakshan Adhikari

Ramkripal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Basantin Bai Vs the Branch Manager

Shanta Nath Vs Dadda Alis Sushil Kumar