Dismissed¶¶32

Smt. Saraswati Bhagat v. Jaswant Singh

Chhattisgarh HC20 Feb 2024MAC/296/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, MAC No. 296 of 2018 (Justice Sachin Singh Rajput; pronounced 21.02.2024). Fatal motor accident compensation adequacy: deceased's monthly income Rs. 1,55,800/-, yearly Rs. 18,69,600/-, post-tax Rs. 15,39,500/-; future prospects 20%/30%; income-tax deduction on prospective income; just compensation cannot be meagre; Sections 166 and 173, Motor Vehicles Act 1988; Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC) Jashpur, MACC No. 25/2016, award dated 31.08.2017 of Rs. 1,82,22,150/- against claim Rs. 3,28,26000/- (as printed); 9% interest; insurer's pleas of head-on collision/contributory negligence and policy violations decided below in claimants' favour; owner and driver ex-parte; no enhancement — appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None — appeal dismissed without enhancement; Tribunal award upheld.

Smt. Saraswati Bhagat Vs Jaswant Singh — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — appeal dismissed without enhancement; Tribunal award upheld.

¶¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal (Rs. 1,82,22,150/-) is just and adequate — specifically whether the deceased's income was properly assessed, adequate future prospect was added, and amounts on all admissible heads are on the lower side warranting enhancement. +1 more

¶¶26

Court's answer

The Tribunal's income assessment of the deceased (monthly Rs. 1,55,800/-; yearly Rs. 18,69,600/-; less income tax Rs. 3,30,100/- yielding Rs. 15,39,500/-; with future prospect added, Rs. 18,47,800/-) appears to be based on the evidence available on record.

¶¶29

Ratio / Principle

Since the Tribunal did not deduct income tax on the future-prospect-enhanced income, any deduction on that future benefit like income tax should have been considered while assessing compensation.

¶¶31

Key takeaways

Considering the evidence on record, adding 20% future prospect instead of 30% for assessment of compensation would not make much difference, so no material correction of the award was required on this count.ratio¶¶31
General principle invoked: the amount of compensation should be just and cannot be meagre.obiter¶¶31
In the Court's opinion, the award of Rs. 1,82,22,150/- (with 9% interest from the date of claim application) is just under the given facts, circumstances and evidence on record; consequently the appeal is dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MAC appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the widow, two minor sons and parents of Ramprasad Bhagat (Senior Manager, SECL, Bhatgaon), who died on 12.05.2016 in a collision involving Truck No. CG 07 AA - 0555 (owner and driver ex-parte; insured with The New India Insurance Company Limited). Challenging the award dated 31.08.2017 of the Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Jashpur in MACC No. 25/2016, whereby Rs. 1,82,22,150/- was awarded against a claim printed as Rs. 3,28,26000/-, the claimants sought enhancement on the grounds that income was under-assessed and future prospects inadequate. Held: the Tribunal's income assessment (monthly Rs. 1,55,800/-; yearly Rs. 18,69,600/-; after Rs. 3,30,100/- income tax, Rs. 15,39,500/-; with future prospect, Rs. 18,47,800/-) was based on record evidence; although the Tribunal ought to have deducted income tax on the future-prospect benefit, adding 20% future prospect instead of 30% would not make much difference; the award of Rs. 1,82,22,150/- with 9% interest from the date of the claim application is just. Appeal dismissed.

¶1

¶2

Order Reserved on 02.02.2024

¶3

Order Pronounced on 21.02.2024

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 296 of 2018

¶6

1 - Smt. Saraswati Bhagat W/o Late Ramprasad Bhagat Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Orkela, Tahsil Manora, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - Minor Abhishwk Bhagat S/o Late Ramprasad Bhagat Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Next Friend And Natural Guardian Mother Namely Smt. Saraswati Bhagat, Appellant No.1, R/o Village Orkela, Tahsil Manora, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

3 - Minor Ankit Bhagat S/o Late Ramprasad Bhagat Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Next Friend And Natural Guardian Mother Namely Smt. Saraswati Bhagat, Appellant No.1, R/o Village Orkela, Tahsil Manora, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh,

¶9

4 - Mansu Ram Bhagat S/o Late Shivnath Ram Bhagat Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Orkela, Tahsil Manora, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

5 - Smt. Mangni Bai W/o Shri Mansu Ram Bhagat Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Orkela, Tahsil Manora, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

1 - Jaswant Singh S/o Prem Singh C/o Punjab Roadways, T.P.Nagar, Hathkhoj-Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Owner),

¶13

2 - Nandkumar Singh S/o Khushinandan Singh Aged About 35 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Agrasen Chowk, Bhaisthan Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Driver),

¶14

3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Local Branch Office Judev Complex, Ghamahriya Road, Jashpur Nagar, Chhattisgarh (Insurer) ---- Respondents

¶15

Mr. Aman Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

¶16

CAV Order

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶18

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) challenging the award dated

¶19

¶20

31.08.2017 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 25/2016 by the Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (FTC), Jashpur, District Jashpur, CG. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs. 3,28,26000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,82,22,150/- on account of death of deceased Ramprasad Bhagat in an accident that took place on 12.05.2016 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Truck) bearing registration No. CG 07 AA - 0555 owned by the respondent No. 1 / owner, driven by the respondent No. 2 / driver and insured with respondent No. 3 / insurance company.

¶21

As per pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of MV Act, the deceased Ramprasad Bhagat was posted as a Senior Manager in SECL, Bhatgaon, District Surajpur, CG. It was further pleaded that his monthly income was Rs. 1,60,000/- in the month of April, 2016 & along with his salary, he had received to Rs. 1,25,479/- as leave encashment. Therefore, he received total of Rs. 2,89,952/- in the month of April, 2016.

¶22

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

¶23

The respondent No. 3 / insurance company filed its written statement and denied the averments of the claim application. It was further pleaded that there was head on collision between the offending vehicle and the car driven by the deceased, hence, the deceased was also contributed equally in causing the accident. It was pleaded that exaggerated amount of compensation was claimed and there is a violation of terms and conditions of the insurance company.

¶24

¶25

Learned Tribunal framed issues on the basis of pleadings made by the respective parties and decided the same in favour of the appellants / claimants and awarded the above stated compensation.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellants / claimants vehemently argued that income of the deceased was not properly assessed, adequate future prospect is not added and amount of compensation and on all admissible heads is on the lower side, therefore, adequate enhancement may be made by this Court.

¶27

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the learned Tribunal on meticulous assessment of evidence brought on record with regard to the income of the deceased, his possibility of being promoted and possible increase in his income, adequately awarded the compensation. He further submits that the compensation should be just and looking from any evidence awardable of Rs. 1,82,22,150/- cannot be said to be less. Therefore, the award passed does not require any interference by this Court.

¶28

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

¶29

Though the learned Tribunal found the monthly income of the deceased to Rs. 1,55,800/- which appears to be based on the evidence available on record, learned Tribunal found yearly income of the deceased to Rs. 18,69,600/- and after deduction of the income tax of Rs. 3,30,100/- paid by the deceased and found the yearly income of the deceased to Rs. 15,39,500/-. Though 20% future prospect is added and his yearly income was found to be Rs. 18,47,800 for assessment of a compensation, naturally some income tax would have been paid by the

¶30

¶31

deceased in future, therefore, future prospect is added considering to Rs. 30%. But in the case in hand, the learned Tribunal has not deducted any income tax for the future prospect which the deceased would have paid while his income would have increased in future. When the deceased has been provided with some benefit in future, any deduction on that benefit like income tax should have been considered while assessment of compensation. Therefore, considering the evidence available on record, adding 20% future prospect instead of 30% for assessment of compensation would not make much difference. Law is very settled that the amount of compensation should be just & it cannot be meagre. Tribunal has further awarded 9 % interest from the date of claim application and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the award of Rs. 1,82,22,150/- is just under the given facts and circumstances and evidence on record.

¶32

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶35

Judge

¶36

PAWAN

Smt. Saraswati Bhagat v. Jaswant Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Saraswati Bhagat v. Jaswant Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Branch Manager Bajaj Allainz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pramila Devi

Arun Kumar Patel and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Janshi Bai

Chandrakant Singh Vs Raju Sahu

Chokharam Vs Shankar Lal

Smt. Madhuri Bai Sannadya Vs Monchu @ Hemant