Partly allowed

Rathram Sahu v. Anish Kumar Singh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Feb 2024MAC/275/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal filed by claimants challenging an award in a motor accident claim case where the Tribunal awarded significantly less compensation than claimed. The Court enhanced the compensation by recalculating monthly income and applying future prospects and multipliers based on precedent.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 5,61,000/- to Rs. 10,17,200/- with 6% interest.

Rathram Sahu Vs Anish Kumar Singh — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 275 of 2018

¶4

1 - Rathram Sahu Ramhau Sahu, Aged About 42 Years R/o Samlai Para Ward No. 12, Kasdol, Thana Kasdol, District Baloda Bazaar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶5

2 - Smt. Janki Bai, W/o Rathram Sahu, Aged About 36 Years R/o Samlai Para Ward No. 12, Kasdol, Thana Kasdol, District Baloda Bazaar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

1 - Anish Kumar Singh Vijay Singh, Aged About 34 Years R/o Alavapur, Thana Punpun, District Patna, Bihar, Present Address- Ring Road No. 2, Bhanpuri I. D. T. C. Transport Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2 - Inter Domoniyam Transport Company R/o Ring Road No. 2, Bhanpuri, Raipur Proprietor Sanjay Jhunjunwala, S/o Late Satnarayan, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Truck Bearing No. C. G. 04 J. C. 4136)

¶10

3 - Tata A. I. G. General Insurance Company Limited, Zonal Office Lalganga, Complex, Second Floor, G. E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company Of Truck Trailer Bearing No. C. G. J. C. 4136) ---- Respondents

¶11

Mr. Arun Shukla, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Deepak Jain, learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

¶12

____________________________________________________________

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput,

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

09.02.2024

¶16

This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) challenging the award dated 21.07.2017 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 42/2016 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda - Bazar, CG. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs. 23,80,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 5,61,000/- on account of death of deceased Madav Sahu in an accident that took place on 12.04.2016 by rash and

¶17

¶18

negligent driving of the offending vehicle truck trailor bearing registration No. CG 04 JC 4136 driven by the respondent No. 1 / driver, owned by respondent No. 2 / owner and insured with respondent No. 3 / insurance company.

¶19

As per the pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was aged about 18 years; he was working as mason (Rajmistri) and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month.

¶20

The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 / driver and owner remained ex-parte and did not file any written statement.

¶21

The respondent No. 3 / insurance company filed its written statement and in usual course denied the averments of the claim application.

¶22

The learned Tribunal has framed four issues on the basis of the pleadings, decided the same in favour of the appellants / claimants and awarded the above stated compensation.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellants / claimants submits that the income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side; future prospect is also not awarded and compensation on all other heads is also on the lower side. In support of above contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Smt. Sarla

¶24

Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 supports the award and submits that just compensation has been awarded hence no interference is warranted.

¶26

¶27

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

¶28

From the evidence on record, it is apparent that the deceased was a member of union of masons, his president was also examined and he has stated that the deceased was a mason and his identity card was issued and was earning Rs. 300/- per day by working as mason. In light of the evidence on record, looking to the date of accident; numbers of dependents; nature of job and prevailing minimum wages, this Court holds that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. Taking guidance from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Pranay Sethi (supra) , and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130 this Court computes the compensation in the following manner:-

¶29

S. No.	Description	Amount
1.	Monthly income	6000/-
2.	40% Future prospect	2400/-
3.	Total Monthly Income (6000+2400)	8400/-
4.	Total Yearly Income (8400x12)	1,00,800/-
5.	1/2 Deduction for personal expenses of deceased	50,400/-
6.	Net income	50,400/-
7.	Multiplier of 18 applied to assess total loss of dependency	9,07,200/-
8.	Funeral Expenses	15,000/-
9.	Loss of estate	15,000/-
10.	Filial consortium	80,000/-(Rs. 40,000/- each)
	Total compensation	10,17,200/-

¶30

For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 5,61,000/- awarded by learned tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 10,17,200/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 5,61,000/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount

¶31

¶32

of Rs. 4,56,200/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent.

¶33

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within 60 days. After deposit Rs. 2,25,000/(each) shall be invested as fixed deposit in a nationalized bank for a period of three years in the name of appellant Nos. 1 & 2. Remaining amount shall be paid to appellant No. 2 through bank transaction/account payee cheque.

¶34

No cost.

¶35

Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶36

PAWAN

Rathram Sahu v. Anish Kumar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rathram Sahu v. Anish Kumar Singh

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

Phanendra Kumar Sahu Vs Neeraj Pathak

Smt Pinki Chowdhary Vs Mishra Rana Singh

Vijay Bahadur Singh Vs Satya Prakash Sahu

Puniram Patle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukesh Khunte Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ganga Yadav Vs Punaram Yadav