Smt Pinki Chowdhary Vs Mishra Rana Singh

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 301 of 2019

¶5

Smt Pinki Chowdhary Wd/o Late Prawin Kumar Chowdhary Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Dhabrapara, Bagbahra, Police Station And Tahsil- Bagbahra, Civil And Revenue District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶6

Master Ankur Chowdhary S/o Late Prawin Kumar Chowdhary Aged About 2 Years Minor Son And Being Represented Through Appellant No. 01 Mother In Relationship R/o Ward No. 11, Dhabrapara, Bagbahra, Police Station And TahsilBagbahra, Civil And Revenue District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶7

Smt. Bimla Chowdhary Wd/o Late Hari Chowdhry Aged About 60 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Dhabrapara, Bagbahra, Police Station And Tahsil- Bagbahra, Civil And Revenue District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶8

---- Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Mishra Rana Singh S/o Shri Rasendra Rana Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Gudikiya, Police Station- Bramhini Gao, Tahsil And Civil District- Kandhmal, Orrissa.......Driver Of Truck Trailor No. C.G.04/ Jd/ 3535

¶11

Amrit Pal Singh S/o Shri Avtar Singh Oberai Aged About 38 Years By ProfessionTransporter, R/o 29/19, Sector-03, Udaya Society, Tatibandh, Raipur, Police Station- Amanaka, Tahsil And Civil District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh...........Owner Of Truck Trailor No. C.G. 04/jd/ 3535

¶12

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Main Beanch Officer At Madina Bulding, Jail Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh..........Ins. Com. Of Truck-Trailor C.G.04/jd/ 3535

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

For Appellants : Shri Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Shri Deepak Gupta, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶16

Order On Board

¶17

08/02/2024

¶18

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V.Act’) has been filed by the appellants / claimants aggrieved by award dated 16/01/2018 passed by the 2^nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (CG) in Claim Case No.H-94/2016.

¶19

2

¶20

By the impugned award, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.11,85,676/- in favour of the appellants/claimants as compensation on account of death of Praveen Chaudhary in an unfortunate accident that occurred on 22/04/2016 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Truck Trailor) bearing registration No.CG-06/GA-7978 by respondent No.1/driver, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3 / insurance company.

¶21

The appellants / claimants filed an application under Section 166 (1) of the MV Act claiming compensation of Rs.42,00,000/-. As per pleadings, the deceased was aged about 27 years, he was working as daily wage employee in C.G. Vipanan Sangh and was earning Rs.5,300/- per month. Therefore, the abovestated compensation was claimed. Respondents 1 and 2 resisted the claim application on various grounds and Respondent No.3 / insurance company also resisted the claim and took a plea that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.

¶22

On the basis of above broad pleadings, learned Tribunal framed issues, decided those issues in favour of the appellants / claimants and awarded aforestated compensation.

¶23

Learned Tribunal on the basis of evidence and salary certificate proved by the appellants / claimants found the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5860/- and after addition 40% future prospects, compensation on other heads and applying multiplier of 17, awarded the aforesaid compensation.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased was an adult employee, therefore, 50% future prospects ought to have been added by the learned Tribunal. It is also prayed that suitable enhancement of amount on other conventional heads may also be made by this Court.

¶25

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 supports the award and submits that the income pleaded has duly been considered and just compensation has been awarded.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records.

¶27

3

¶28

From the evidence on record, monthly income of the deceased was found to be proved as Rs.5,860/- by the learned Tribunal. However, it is also established that he was a salaried employee and his salary certificate was also proved, therefore, Tribunal fell in error in taking 40% future prospects instead of taking 50%. In the light of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and ors, (2017) 16 SCC 680, Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Ningamma and anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710, this Court hereby reassess the compensation in the following manner taking the monthly income to Rs.6,000/- to make the compensation just :-

¶29

1	Monthly income	Rs.6,000/-
2	Future prospects 50% (6000 + 3000)	Rs.9000/-
3	Yearly income (9000x12)	Rs.108000/-
4	1/2 deduction for personal expenses (108000-36000)	Rs.72000/-
5.	Multiplier of 17 (72000 X 17)	Rs.1224000/-
6.	Funeral expenses + loss of Estate	+Rs.70,000/-
7.	Filial Consortium (Rs.40,000/- each)	+Rs.80,000/-
	TOTAL COMPENSATION	Rs.13,74,000/-

¶30

10.The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.11,85,676/- which is deducted from the total compensation now awarded and the enhanced compensation comes to Rs.1,88,324/- . Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, interest @ 6% is also awarded on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date

¶31

4

¶32

of claim application to be deposited by the insurance company within a period of 60 days. After the amount of compensation is deposited, Rs.50,000/- be invested in the name of appellant No.2 as fixed deposit in a Nationalised Bank till he attains majority. Rs.50,000/- be invested in the name of appellant No.1 as fixed deposit for three years in a nationalised bank. Rs.50,000/- be invested in the name of appellant No.3 for three years as fixed deposit in a nationalised bank. Remaining amount shall be paid to Appellant No.1 through Bank transaction / account payee cheque.

¶33

The appeal is accordingly partly allowed.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge

¶36

Deepti

Smt Pinki Chowdhary v. Mishra Rana Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Pinki Chowdhary v. Mishra Rana Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Kumar Vaishnav Vs Shatruhan Khairwar

Prahalad Sahu Vs Sudhir Sultaniya

Smt. Radhika Devi Vs Jaisingh

Phanendra Kumar Sahu Vs Neeraj Pathak

Vijay Bahadur Singh Vs Satya Prakash Sahu

Balaram Rana Vs Sharafat Hussain