Partly allowed

Smt. Lalita Verma v. Karnail Singh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Feb 2024MAC/386/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident death compensation appeal by claimants seeking enhancement of the Tribunal's award. The court reassessed income at Rs.9,000 per month with 40% future prospects, applying Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance, awarding Rs.16,62,000 total and enhancing by Rs.5,32,000 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs.5,32,000 with 6% interest from 28/02/2018, payable by respondent No.3 within 60 days; part to be invested in fixed deposits.

Smt. Lalita Verma Vs Karnail Singh — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

M.A.(C) No. 386 of 2018

¶4

Smt. Lalita Verma, Wd/o Late Ramdas Verma, aged about 33 Years, R/o Qtr. No. E.O.W.S. 86, Maharana Pratap Nagar Korba, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh,

¶5

Ashutosh @ Anshu Verma, S/o Late Ramdas Verma, aged about 13 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Lalita Verma Wd/o Ramdas Verma, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Qtr. No. E.O.W.S. 86, Maharana Pratap Nagar Korba, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶6

Ku. Gungun Verma, D/o Late Ramdas Verma, aged about 3 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Lalita Verma Wd/o Ramdas Verma, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Qtr. No. E.O.W.S. 86, Maharana Pratap Nagar Korba, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Claimants)

¶7

--- Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Karnail Singh, S/o Late Shri Sukhvindar Singh, aged about 26 Years, R/o S.E.C.L. Behind Hospital, Dhelwadih Colony, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Sub Area Manager, S.E.C.L. Bagdeva Project, R/o Bagdeva Pariyojna (Project, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh)

¶11

United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Division Office, Main Road Sitamani, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶12

--- Respondents

¶13

____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Ms. Neelam Khan, Advocate appeared on behalf of Shri P.K. Patel, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Ramcharan Sahu, Advocate appeared on behalf of Shri Surfaraj Khan, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

13/02/2024

¶17

1. Challenge in this appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for

¶18

short ‘MV Act’) by the appellants/claimants is against the award dated 30/06/2017

¶19

-2-

¶20

passed in Claim Case No.104 / 2013 by I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba, District - Korba(C.G.).

¶21

2. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs.40,00,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.11,30,000/- with 6% interest in favour of appellant / claimant on account of death of deceased Ramdas Verma in an unfortunate motor vehicular accident that took place on 10/05/2018.

¶22

3. As per pleadings of the claim application filed under section 166 of the MV Act, on 27/07/2014, deceased Ramdas Verma to take the father of his friend was going to Appollo Hospital, Bilaspur on Ambulance. At about 01:00 intervening night the driver of the offending vehicle by rash and negligent driving caused the accident. As a result deceased Ramdas Verma who was sitting on the back side of the Ambulance sustained severe injury on head, hand and various parts of the body, thereafter while going to Appollo Hospital on the way he died. The offending vehicle was driven by respondent No.1 / driver, owned by respondent No.2 / owner and insured with the respondent No.3 / Insurance company. The deceased was driver and owner of the Auto and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. The age of the deceased was about 39 years, therefore, the above stated compensation was claimed.

¶23

4. The claim application was resisted by the respondents on various grounds. The respondent No. 3 / Insurance Company took a plea that there is a violation of Insurance Policy as the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license, therefore the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.

¶24

5. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed as many as four issues and decided the same in favour of the appellants / claimants and awarded the above stated compensation.

¶25

6. Learned counsel for the appellants / claimants argues that the monthly income of the deceased was taken on lower side, future prospect is not added and

¶26

-3-

¶27

compensation on other heads is also on lower side which requires suitable enhancement by this Court.

¶28

7. Learned counsel for respondents supports the award and submit that just compensation has been awarded to the appellants / claimants which does not require any interference.

¶29

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

¶30

9. Considering the entire evidence available on record, age of the deceased, nature of job and looking to the date of incident i.e. 10/05/2008, this court safely can take monthly income of deceased to Rs.9,000/-. and 40% future prospects is added.

¶31

10. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC

¶32

130 , this court is reassessing the compensation in the following manner :-

¶33

S.No.	Head	Calculation
1.	Income of the deceased @ 9000/- per month	Rs.108,000/- per annum (Rs.9000/- X 12)
2.	Future prospect 40%	Rs.43,200/-
3.	Total Yearly Income	Rs.1,51,200/- (1,08,000 + 43,200)
4.	1/3 deduction for personal expenses	Rs.1,08,000/-
5.	Multiplier of 15 to be applied	Rs.15,12,000/-
6.	Towards loss of estate,funeral expenses and spousal consortium	Rs.70,000/-
7.	Filial Consortium	Rs80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each to appellant No.2 & 3)
	Total compensation	Rs.16,62,000/-

¶34

11. Since the tribunal has already awarded Rs.11,30,000/-, after deducting the same from the above amount, the appellant / claimant is held entitled for additional

¶35

-4-

¶36

compensation of Rs.05,32,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of appeal i.e. 28/02/2018. The amount shall be deposited by respondent No.3 / Insurance company within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶37

12. Rs.2,00,000/- (two lakh) shall be invested in the name of appellant No. 1 as fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank for a period of 3 years. Rs.1,50,000/- (One lakh fifty thousand) each shall be invested in the name of appellant No. 2 and 3 as fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank for a period of 3 years. Remaining amount shall be paid to appellant No.1 by bank transaction / account payee cheque. No premature withdrawal will be permitted without the leave of the learned Tribunal.

¶38

13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the award impugned to the above extent.

¶39

Sd/-/--

¶40

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶41

Ashish

Smt. Lalita Verma v. Karnail Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Lalita Verma v. Karnail 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

Jitendra Pandey Vs Rajkumar Singh

Smt. Lata Devi Vs Karamjeet Singh

Sarita Patel Vs Jugal Kishore Agrawal

Moharmati Vs Ramkumar Khalkho

Smt. Savitri Kamar Vs Suresh Bagh

Santlal Gupta Vs Nehru Lal Yadav