Smt. Radhika Devi Vs Jaisingh

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 458 of 2019

¶5

Smt. Radhika Devi Wd/o Late Mahendra Prasad Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Hiragir Dafai, Haldibadi, Police Station Chirmiri, Tahsil Khadgawa, District Korea Chhattisgarh

¶6

Arvind Kumar S/o Mahendra Prasad Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Hiragir Dafai, Haldibadi, Police Station Chirmiri, Tahsil Khadgawa, District Korea Chhattisgarh

¶7

Ku. Pushpa Kashyap D/o Late Mahendra Prasad Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Hiragir Dafai, Haldibadi, Police Station Chirmiri, Tahsil Khadgawa, District Korea Chhattisgarh. …………….(Claimants)

¶8

---- Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Jaisingh S/o Bhagwan Das Pando Aged About 40 Years R/o Chittajhor West Chirmiri Podi, Police Station Podi, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Tractor Bearing Registration No. C.G. 16-A-0336)

¶11

Rampratap Tiwari S/o Late Chhotelal Tiwari Aged About 45 Years R/o 44, Quarter West Chirmiri, Podi, Police Station Podi, District Korea Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Tractor Bearing Registration No. C.G. - 16-A-0336)

¶12

Saleem S/o Abdul Hamid Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Senda, Police Station And Tahsil Khadgawa, District Korea Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Tractor Bearing Registration No. C.G. 16-A-0336)

¶13

United India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Bramha Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Tractor Bearing Registration No. C.G. - 16-A-0336)

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

For Appellants : Shri HAPS Bhatia, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Shri Raj Awasthi, Advocate

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶17

Order On Board

¶18

07/02/2024

¶19

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 03/02/2018 passed by the 2^nd Additional Motor Accident Claims

¶20

2

¶21

Tribunal, Manendragarh, District – Koriya (CG) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.43/2015.

¶22

By the impugned award, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,68,400/- in favour of the appellants/claimants as compensation on account of death of Rakesh Kumar Kashyap in an unfortunate accident that occurred on 16/06/2012 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (TractorTrolley) bearing registration No.CG-16-A-0336 by respondent No.1/driver, owned by respondent No.3 and insured with respondent No.4 / insurance company.

¶23

The appellants / claimants filed an application under Section 166 (1) of the MV Act claiming compensation of Rs.4,68,400/-. As per pleadings, the deceased was aged about 27 years, he was engaged in sales and repair of mobile, electronic and electrical items and was earning Rs.22,000/- monthly. Therefore, the abovestated compensation was claimed. Respondent No.2 remained ex-parte before the learned Tribunal. Respondent No.1 and 3 filed their joint written statement in which they resisted the claim averments and stated that though the offending was sold by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3, the vehicle is still registered in the name of respondent No.2 and name of respondent No.3 has not been transferred. It is also stated that the vehicle was not being driven rashly and negligently. Respondent No.4 / insurance company took a plea that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. It has also been pleaded that the motor cycle was being driven without having valid and effective driving license, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.

¶24

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

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the monthly income of the deceased has been taken on lower side. It is also submitted that the amount of compensation on all other heads is also on the lower side. Therefore, it is prayed that suitable enhancement may be made.

¶26

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 supports the award and submits that

¶27

3

¶28

just compensation has been awarded.

¶29

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

¶30

Considering the age of the deceased; date of accident; evidence available, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.4,500/-. Taking guidance from the 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 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court hereby reassess the compensation in the following manner -

¶31

1	Monthly salary	Rs.4500/-
2	Future prospects 40% (4500 + 1800)	Rs.6300/-
3	Yearly income (6300x12)	Rs.75600/-
4	1/2 deduction for personal expenses (75600-37800)	Rs.37800/-
5.	Multiplier of 17 (37800 X 17)	Rs.642600/-
6.	Funeral expenses + loss of Estate	+Rs.30000/-
7.	Filial Consortium (Rs.40,000/- each to appellant No.1 and 3)	+Rs.80000/-
	TOTAL COMPENSATION	Rs.7,52,600/-

¶32

The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,68,400/- which is deducted from the total compensation now awarded and the enhanced compensation comes to Rs.2,84,200/- . Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, interest @

¶33

4

¶34

6% is also awarded on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of claim application to be deposited by the insurance company within a period of 60 days. After the amount of compensation is deposited, Rs.2 lakhs be invested in the name of appellant No.1 for two years as fixed deposit in a Nationalised Bank. Rs.50,000/- be invested as fixed deposited in the name of appellant No.3 for two years in a Nationalised Bank. Remaining amount shall be paid to Appellant No.1 through Bank transaction / account payee cheque.

¶35

The appeal thus allowed in part.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge

¶38

Deepti

Smt. Radhika Devi v. Jaisingh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Radhika Devi v. Jaisingh

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

Smt. Annu Singh Vs Vinod Singh

Deepa Sidar Vs Liladhar Prasad Chandra

Smt. Jayantri Bai Markam Vs Thakurram Yadav

Dinesh Kumar Vaishnav Vs Shatruhan Khairwar

Prahalad Sahu Vs Sudhir Sultaniya

Jitu @ Vijender Yadav Vs Chitaranjan Malik