Partly allowed

Smt. Annu Singh v. Vinod Singh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Feb 2024MAC/573/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the appeal in part. The Court enhanced compensation from Rs. 14,07,000 to Rs. 18,42,800 by re-computing monthly income to Rs. 8,000 and adding future prospects. The insurance company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within 60 days.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 14,07,000 to Rs. 18,42,800. Insurance company directed to deposit amount and invest sums for minors and pay widow within 60 days.

Smt. Annu Singh Vs Vinod Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 573 of 2017

¶5

Smt. Annu Singh Wd/o Late Manoj Kumar Singh, Aged About 29 Years R/o Near Quarter No. 223/ B Zone 2 B M Y Charoda P.S. Bhilai-3 Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

Palak Singh D/o Late Manoj Kumar Singh, Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Annu Singh W/o Late Manoj Kumar Singh, R/o Near Quarter No. 223/ B Zone 2 B M Y Charoda P.S. Bhilai-3 Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

Naina Singh D/o Late Manoj Kumar Singh, Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Annu Singh W/o Late Manoj Kumar Singh, R/o Near Quarter No. 223/ B Zone 2 B M Y Charoda P.S. Bhilai-3 Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

Smt. Indu Singh W/o Kalika Singh, Aged About 55 Years R/o Near Quarter No. 223/ B Zone 2 B M Y Charoda P.S. Bhilai-3 Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Kalika Singh S/o Late Chandrama Singh, Aged About 59 Years R/o Near Quarter No. 223/ B Zone 2 B M Y Charoda P.S. Bhilai-3 Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

---- Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

Vinod Singh S/o Ravindra Singh, Aged About 24 Years R/o Zone-2, Balaji Nagar Khurseepar Bhilai District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

Dalvir Singh S/o Swarn Singh, R/o Arya Nagar Kohka Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Through Specical Power Of Attorney Neeraj Kumar S/o Shri C Sahu R/o L I C 183 Housing Board Colony District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Office Tara Complex G E Road Power House Bhilai Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

---- Respondents

¶16

For the Appellants : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : None. Though served. For Respondent No.3. : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board

¶18

06.02.2024

¶19

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for

¶20

short MV Act) has been filed by the appellants/claimants, being aggrieved by the award dated 23.06.2016 passed by the learned 6^th

¶21

¶22

Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District- Durg, (CG) in Claim Case No. 185/2014.

¶23

1. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs. 59,25,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 14,07,000/- to the appellants/claimants, on account of the death of deceased/Manoj Kumar Singh in an accident that took place on 04.05.2014 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Trailor) bearing Registration No. C.G.-07-C-6740 driven by driver/Vinod Singh, owned by owner/Dalvir Singh and insured with the respondent No. 2/Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. As a result of the said accident, the deceased/Manoj Kumar Singh suffered grievous injuries and was immediately sent to the Government Hospital, Durg and then referred to Sector-09 Hospital, Bhilai, during treatment doctors declared Manoj Kumar Singh dead.

¶24

1. As per the pleadings, the deceased/Manoj Kumar Singh was aged about 32 years and he was working as a Supervisor in a liquor shop and earning salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month including all allowances, the deceased was also involved in business of driving auto and earning Rs. 5,000/- per month from it. The appellants/claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased.

¶25

1. The claim application was resisted by respondents on various grounds and also insurance company taking a plea that the offending vehicle was being used without valid and permit and fitness, the drive drove the offending vehicle without any valid and effective driving licence. Hence, there is a violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

¶26

¶27

1. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed 6 issues and after appreciating the material available on record decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded above stated compensation holding the monthly income of the deceased to Rs. 4,500/-.

¶28

1. Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants argued that the employer of the deceased/Manoj Kumar Singh was examined and he has categorically proved the income of the deceased/Manoj Kumar Singh to Rs. 15,000/-, the future prospect is not added in the income of the deceased, hence, suitable enhancement of compensation may be made by this Court.

¶29

1. Per contra, Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. supports that award and argued that no prudent and cogent evidence available on record to establish the profession and income of the deceased/Manoj Kumar Singh, the learned Tribunal has awarded exaggerated amount on all other conventional heads. In totality, just compensation has been awarded.

¶30

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

¶31

1. As per the pleadings of the claim application, the deceased/Manoj Kumar Singh was working as a Supervisor in a liquor shop, also engaged in business of driving auto and his monthly income was stated to be Rs. 20,000/-. The appellants/claimants are 5 in numbers, widow, two minors children and parents of the deceased.

¶32

¶33

1. Smt. Annu Singh (Aw-1) in her affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC deposed in the line of claim application and stated that her husband was working as a Supervisor in the liquor shop run by Manoj Kumar Soni (employer) and used to earn Rs. 15,000/- per month as salary and other allowances from it. Apart from this, he was involved in the business of driving auto and earning Rs. 5,000/- per month, earning total Rs. 20,000/- per month. She further stated that deceased had purchased an auto from finance company and the installment was being paid by him and after the installment is complete, the registration of the said auto is made in her husband’s name. Copies of the amount paid in installment is annexed with the file record and she further stated that Manoj Kumar Soni (employer) is friend of her husband, she denied the suggestion that her husband was not working with Manoj Kumar Soni (employer) and also denied that deceased was not earning Rs. 15,000/-. She further stated that the auto in her custody at present and still earning same income from it.

¶34

1. Manoj Kumar Soni (Aw-3) in his statement before the learned Tribunal stated that his wine shop is situated at Shantinagar, Dhamdha Road, Durg, where the deceased was working as a Salesman (Supervisor) and he was paid Rs. 10,000/- salary and Rs. 100/- daily allowances. He has issued salary certificate (ex-P27) with his signature between A to A part. A photocopy of the licence to run the liquor shop which is marked as Ex-D-1 is also on record. From perusal of the licence, it appears that the licence was issued for the financial year 2013-14. Manoj Kumar Soni (Aw-3) further stated that in cross-examination that the licence was for the year 2013 to till 31^st March, 2014 and he has not filed any licence for year 2014. He himself stated that he did not

¶35

¶36

get any licence after 31.03.2014. He stated that somebody else of his group has obtained the licence to run the liquor shop, hence somebody elses’ name the liquor shop in being run. He stated that vouchers with regard to salary payment is available and same has not been filed. He further stated that payment of Rs. 10,000/- to the deceased is mentioned in his income tax return, however, he does not know whether in his income tax return the payment of salary of Rs. 10,000/to the deceased is mentioned or not. He denied the suggestions that the on the date of the accident, the deceased was not working with him and he has making a false statement as the deceased/Manoj Kumar Singh is known to him.

¶37

1. From perusal of assessment of the above evidence, it appears that the deceased/Manoj Kumar Singh was working in liquor shop prior to the date of accident, however, after the expiry of the license, whether his employment was continued or not, it is not established with prudent evidence. But the fact remains that for the financial year till 31.03.2014, the deceased said to have been employed in the liquor shop as a Supervisor on the basis of the cumulative assessment of evidence.

¶38

1. The learned Tribunal found the monthly income of the deceased Rs. 4,500/- per month, but considering the available evidence on record, it appears on the lower side. Hence, looking to the number of the dependents; age of the appellants/claimants & deceased; date of accident; nature of job & minimum wages prevailing at that time, this Court is of the view that Rs. 8,000/- can be safely taken as income of the deceased.

¶39

¶40

1. In light of the above and taking guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others; (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors; (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court is recomputing the compensation

¶41

as below:-

¶42

S.N	Particular		Awarded by this Court
1.	Monthly Income of deceased	the	8,000/-
2.	Future Prospects @ 40%		3,200/-
3.	Total Income		11,200/-
4.	Total Yearly Income		11,200X12= 1,34,400/-
5.	Personal expenditure (1/4)		1,34,400/4= 33,600/-
6.	Multiplier of 16 applied assess total loss dependency	to of	1,00,800X16= 16,12,800/-
7.	Funeral Expenses		15,000/-
8.	Loss of estate		15,000/-
9.	Spousal consortium		40,000/-
10.	Parental & Filial consortium		1,60,000/-(40,000/-each)
	*Total compensation*		Rs. 18,42,800/-

¶43

For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 14,07,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 18,42,800/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 14,07,000/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 04,35,800/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @6% per annum from the date of claim application. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent.

¶44

¶45

The insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from today, on such deposit being made, Rs. 01,00,00/- shall be deposited in the name of appellant No. 1/ Smt. Annu Singh for a period of 2 years in FDR at any Nationalized Bank, Rs. 1,00,000/- each shall be invested as above in the name of appellant Nos. 2 & 3 till they attain majority and Rs. 50,000/- each shall be paid to appellant Nos. 4 & 5 and remaining amount shall be paid to appellant No. 1/ Smt. Annu Singh through bank transaction/account payee cheque.

¶46

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶49

H.Ansari

Smt. Annu Singh v. Vinod Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Annu Singh v. Vinod 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

Smt. Karfulo Mahanand Vs Pradeep Bharati

Jaggu @ Jageshwar Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Krishna Das Mahant Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deepa Sidar Vs Liladhar Prasad Chandra

Smt. Jayantri Bai Markam Vs Thakurram Yadav

Smt. Amrit Bai Rajput Vs Vijay Ram Parginha