Partly allowed

Smt. Jam Bai Patel and Anr. v. Sant Kumar Mahilange and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC10 Jun 2024MAC/494/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a motor accident compensation appeal under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the High Court affirmed the Tribunal's award but enhanced the compensation amount by recalculating future prospects and applying a higher multiplier, granting additional sums to the claimants.

What did the court decide?

Appellants entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 3,00,960 with interest at 6% per annum from date of enhancement.

Smt. Jam Bai Patel and Anr. Vs Sant Kumar… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 494 of 2015

¶5

1. Smt. Jam Bai Patel W/o Padum Patel Aged About 43 Years, R/o Jodhara, Chowki Panchpedi, Tahsil And P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

2. Padum Ram Patel S/o Dhaniram Patel, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Jodhara, Chowki Pachpedi, Tahsil And P.S. Masturi, DistrictBilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

---- Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. Sant Kumar Mahilange S/o Raj Kumar Mahilange, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Kota Dabari, Champa, P.S. Champa, District JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2. Naresh Pagwar S/o Bhagirathi Pagwar, Aged About 40 Years R/o Sharda Chowk, Akaltara Road-2, Janjgir, P.S. And Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Add. 10003 E-8, Ralko Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur Rajasthan, Through Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Add. Rajeev Plaza, In front Of UTI, Near Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For Appellants For Respondent No.3

¶14

: Mr. Tarun Dansena, Advocate : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board

¶16

11/ 06/ 2024

¶17

1. This appeal arises out of award dated 21.10.2014 passed by 1^st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, in Claim Case No.82/2012 awarding compensation of Rs.2,12,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, in favour of the appellant/claimants.

¶18

2. The claim of appellant/claimants before the Tribunal, in brief, was

¶19

¶20

that on 28.07.2012, when deceased Ganesh Ram Patel was going to the market on foot with his father i.e. appellant no.2, respondent no.1 driving the offending truck bearing registration No. CG 10 C 3657 rashly and negligently dashed Ganesh Ram Patel from behind as a result of which he suffered grievous injuries on his body and died on the spot. Upon report being made in this regard, crime was registered against respondent no.1 at Chowki Pachpedi, PS Masturi (CG).

¶21

3. It was claimed that at the time of accident, deceased Ganesh Ram Patel was unmarried, his age was about 22 years and he was earning Rs.3,300/- per month by working as a labour. Due to the casual death of deceased Ganesh Ram Patel, there is an irreparable loss to the claimants who are the parents of the deceased. Therefore, the claimants preferred an application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Claims Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs.12,95,000/-.

¶22

4. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents available on record, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum. Since the deceased was unmarried and the claimants are the parents of the deceased, 50% of the income was deducted towards personal expenses and after deduction, the amount comes to Rs.18,000/- per annum. Considering the fact that the deceased was unmarried, multiplier of 11 was applied as per the age of the parents of deceased and the total loss of dependency worked out to Rs.1,98,000/-. In addition, Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.2,500/- for loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- for love and affection has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.2,12,500/- in favour of the claimants with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal is for

¶23

¶24

enhancement.

¶25

5. Learned counsel for appellant/claimants submits that the multiplier of 11 held by the Tribunal considering the age of the parents of deceased is improper and it should be 18 as per the age of the deceased. He next submits that the Tribunal has erred in not considering future prospects while computing compensation as it failed to appreciate that the deceased could have earned much more if he had not met with the accident. He further submits that the Tribunal has awarded lesser compensation under other heads which also needs to be enhanced suitably.

¶26

6. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of learned counsel for insurance company that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement.

¶27

7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

¶28

8. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation nor a Bonanza.

¶29

9. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

¶30

10. In the case at hand, the claim application was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, under which, the income would not exceed Rs.40,000/- per annum. The claimants have claimed that at the time of accident the deceased was earning Rs.3,300/- per month. Therefore, accepting the said fact, the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.3,300/- per month

¶31

¶32

instead of Rs.3,000/- as assessed by the Tribunal. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs.1,320, the income comes to Rs.4,620/- per month i.e. Rs.55,440/- per annum. The deceased was aged around 22 years and the claimants are the parents of the deceased, so the deduction of 50% made by the Tribunal towards personal expenses is found to be proper. After deduction of 50% towards personal expenses, the amount comes to Rs.27,720/-.

¶33

11. Since the deceased was unmarried, the Tribunal, considering the age of the parents of the deceased, has applied the multiplier of 11. However, in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier would be 18 instead of 11 as wrongly held by the Tribunal. Hence, after applying the multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.4,98,960/-. The Tribunal has awarded total Rs.14,500/- under conventional heads which is found to be proper as the claim application was filed under Section 163A of MV Act. Accordingly, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,13,460/- in the following manner:-

¶34

Heads	Calculation
Compensation towards dependency	4,98,960
Towards loss of estate	2,500
Towards Loss of Love and affection to the claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- each	10,000

¶35

¶36

Funeral Expenses	2,000
Total compensation	Rs. 5,13,460

¶37

12. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs.5,13,460/- and after deducting Rs.2,12,500/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.3,00,960/-.

¶38

13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs.3,00,960/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.

¶39

14. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Tribunal below. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants reside. d

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶42

Khatai

Smt. Jam Bai Patel and Anr. v. Sant Kumar Mahilange and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jam Bai Patel and Anr. v. Sant Kumar Mahilange and Ors.

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

Sevak Ram Sahu Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Hansaro

Rohit Kumar Sahu Vs (Deleted) Shri Ramesh Kumar Sharma

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Bhagwati Paikra

Nirmal Kumar Dhruw Vs Smt. Alarmelmangai D.

Ram Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh