Partly allowed

Yograj v. Rajesh Kumar Sahu @ Munna

Chhattisgarh HC13 Jun 2024MAC/610/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident claim appeal, the High Court of Chhattisgarh modified the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Assessing the deceased's dependency income and applying the appropriate multiplier, the Court enhanced the awarded compensation by Rs. 42,672/-. The insurance company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount, and the appeal was partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 42,672/- awarded to appellants with interest; insurance company directed to deposit it within 60 days.

Yograj Vs Rajesh Kumar Sahu @ Munna — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 610 of 2017

¶5

Yograj S/o Mayaram Mahar, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Khamhartola Manpur Chowk Tahsil Dondi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

Santribai W/o Mayaram Mahar, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Khamhartola Manpur Chowk Tahsil Dondi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

---- Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Rajesh Kumar Sahu @ Munna S/o Sundarlal Sahu, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Purana Bazarapara Ward No.12 District Balod, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Gurmeet Singh Randhawa S/o Mohindar Singh, R/o Fouvara Chowk, Byron Bazaar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Present R/o Shubhashpara, Ward No.11 Bhanupratappur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, E-08, E P T P- Rilo Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶12

	---- Respondents
For the Appellants For Respondent No.3. For other respondents -------------------------------------------	: Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate : Mr. Raghvendra Verma on behalf of Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate : None, though served. -----------------------------------------------------------

¶13

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

¶14

14.06.2024.

¶15

1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2017 application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶16

Though opposed, but for the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

¶17

Admit.

¶18

Issue notice Mr. Verma accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 3.

¶19

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶20

¶21

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) has been filed by the appellants/claimants, being aggrieved by the award dated 30.04.2016 passed by the 1^st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 18/2013.

¶22

1. By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 4,34,000/- to the appellants/claimants, on account of the death of deceased/Maniklal in an accident that took place on 02.09.2012 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Truck) bearing Registration No. CG-04-CZ-1377, driven by driver/respondent No.1- Rajesh Kumar Sahu, Owned by respondent No. 2/Gurmeet Singh, insured with the respondent No. 3/Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. As a result of the said accident, the deceased/Maniklal died on the spot.

¶23

1. As per the pleadings, the deceased/Maniklal was aged about 19 years and was working in garage as labour and was earning Rs. 7500/- per month. The appellants/claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased.

¶24

1. Respondent No. 1 & 2/Driver and Owner remained ex- parte before the learned Tribunal. Respondent No.3/Insurance company in usual course, denied the averments of the claim application and pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence and there is a violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy.

¶25

1. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed

¶26

5 issues and after appreciating the material available on record

¶27

¶28

decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded above stated compensation.

¶29

1. Mr. Amit Nayak, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased/Maniklal was aged about 19 years and was working as in garage as labour and was earning Rs. 7500/- per months, whereas the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased/Maniklal to Rs. 3,000/-. Alternatively, he submits that looking to the date of accident, atleast minimum wages should have been taken for assessment of compensation and amount on other heads is also on the lower side. Hence, suitable enhancement may be made by this Court.

¶30

1. Mr. Raghvendra Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. supports the award and submits that in view of evidence available on record and findings of the learned Tribunal is justified and just compensation has been awarded.

¶31

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

¶32

1. The learned Tribunal found the monthly income of the deceased/Maniklal to Rs. 3,000/- and after deducting 1/3 for his personal expenses and applying multiplier of 17 awarded Rs. 3,84,000/- for loss of dependency and further awarded Rs. 10,000/- for love and affection each, Rs. 20,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 10,000/- for loss of estate and thus thereby awarded total Rs. 4,34,000/- as compensation.

¶33

¶34

1. Considering the entire evidence available on record; this Court assesses the yearly income of the deceased Rs. 40,000/- and divided by 1/3 the deduction would come Rs. 13,333/-, after that yearly dependency would come to Rs. 26,667/- and applying multiplier of 16 total loss of earning on dependency would be Rs. 4,26,672/-. After deducting the for loss of dependency awarded by the learned Tribunal Rs. 3,84,000/- the total enhanced compensation would come to Rs. 42,672/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @6% per annum from the date of this appeal i.e. 05.04.2017. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. The rest of the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal under all other admissible heads is not disturbed and is hereby maintained.

¶35

1. 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, the amount shall be disbursed equally to the appellant/claimant Nos. 1 & 2 through bank transaction/account payee cheque.

¶36

1. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶39

Judge

¶40

H.Ansari

Yograj v. Rajesh Kumar Sahu @ Munna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yograj v. Rajesh Kumar Sahu @ Munna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas Tamrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Diwaker Choubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satish Kumar Choubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mange Ram Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohammad Sahil Vs Smt. Aasha Singh

Chiman Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh