Allowed

Smt. Sangeeta Chandak v. Bhanwar Lal Rathi

Chhattisgarh HC2 May 2024MAC/668/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Enhanced compensation in a motor accident appeal, fixing monthly loss of dependency at Rs.13,000 based on filed income tax returns. It awarded a total of Rs.25,10,200 including interest, partly allowing the appeal despite the delay in filing subsequent returns.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation of Rs.25,10,200 to be deposited within 60 days; appeal allowed in part; pending applications disposed of.

Smt. Sangeeta Chandak Vs Bhanwar Lal Rathi — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 668 of 2017

¶5

Smt. Sangeeta Chandak W/o Late Rawal Chandak, Aged About 29 Years At Present R/o Maitri Sangh Gali, Mohan Nagar, Kumharpara, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh

¶6

Smt. Shanti Devi Chandak W/o Late Tarachand Chandak, Aged About 57 Years At Present R/o Maitri Sangh Gali, Mohan Nagar, Kumharpara, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh

¶7

Devesh Chandak S/o Late Rawal Chandak, Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sangeeta Chandak, At Present R/o Maitri Sangh Gali, Mohan Nagar, Kumharpara, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Krishan Chandak S/o Late Rawal Chandak, Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sangeeta Chandak, At Present R/o Maitri Sangh Gali, Mohan Nagar, Kumharpara, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh ...............Claimants

¶9

---- Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Bhanwar Lal Rathi S/o Damodhar Rathi, Aged About 55 Years R/o Abhanpur P.S. Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Branch Manager, National Insurance Company, First Floor Naveen Market Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

For Appellants : Shri Vikas A. Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶16

Order On Board

¶17

03/05/2024

¶18

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act’) has been filed assailing validity and correctness of award dated 11/01/2017 passed by the 3^rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar, Place – Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh in claim case No.15/2016. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs.44,47,872/-, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.7,64,400/- in favour of the appellants / claimants on account of death of Rawal Chandak in an accident that occurred on

¶19

¶20

22/06/2014 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Bolero) bearing registration No.CG 04-KQ-5444 by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2 /insurance company.

¶21

As per pleadings of the claim application, the deceased – Rawal Chandak was aged about 27 years, he was a business man and was earning Rs.13,232/- per month. The respondents being widow, minor children and mother of the deceased were dependent upon the mother of the deceased. The claim application was resisted by respondent no.1 on various grounds. Respondent No.2 / insurance company took a plea that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license.

¶22

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

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation awarded is meager which requires suitable enhancement. It is submitted that income tax return has been filed to show income of the deceased to Rs.1,58,780/- which has wrongly been disbelieved by the learned Tribunal only on the ground that subsequent income tax returns have not been filed which has now been filed before this Court by moving application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Therefore, it is prayed that suitable enhancement may be made including amount on other admissible heads.

¶24

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the award and submits that though income tax return was filed, however, learned Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the same in the light of the fact that subsequent income tax returns have not been filed and after considerable period of time, subsequent income tax returns have been filed along with the said application which cannot be permitted by this Court.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

As per pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was a business man and was earning Rs.13,232/-. The income tax return for the assessment year 2010-2011 was filed which contains acknowledgment slip of income tax department according to which the income of the deceased was found to be Rs.1,58,780/- and for assessment year 2009 -2010, total income appears to be Rs.1,49,410/-. Perusal of the document appended to the application goes to show that subsequently also, income tax return was filed by the appellants. Statement of appellant / claimant No.1 – Smt. Sangeeta Chandak also goes to show that the deceased was a business man and was earning Rs.13,232/- per month. The cumulative assessment of the overall statement and the documents appended, it appears that the deceased was earning Rs.13,000/per month. It is well settled principle of law that the amount of compensation may not be meager nor in bonanza and the Courts are required to see whether just compensation has been awarded. The claimant / appellant No.1 is a young widow of 29 years, appellant No.2 is the widow mother aged about 57 years and appellants 3 and 4 are minor children aged about 3 and 4 years respectively. They are supposed to live the whole life without the income of the deceased. Considering the entire aspects as available on record, this Court can safely assess the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.13,000/and 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 computes the compensation in the following manner -

¶28

1.	Monthly income	Rs.13000/-
2.	Future prospects 40% (13000 + 5200)	Rs.18200/-
3.	Yearly income (18200 x12)	Rs.218400/-
4.	¼^thdeduction for personal expenses (218400-54600)	Rs.163800/-

¶29

¶30

5.	Multiplier of 17 (163800 X 17)	Rs.27,84,600/- (Loss of dependency)
6.	Funeral expenses + loss of Estate+ spousal consortium	+Rs.70,000/-
7.	Parental and filial Consortium (Rs.40,000/- each)	+Rs.1,20,000/-
	TOTAL COMPENSATION	Rs.29,74,600/-

¶31

The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.7,64,400/- which is deducted from the total compensation now awarded and the enhanced compensation comes to Rs.22,10,200/-.

¶32

At this stage, Shri Gupta, counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the appeal remained pending for a long period and the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was filed after considerable period of time and no effort was made on behalf of the appellant to get the matter listed, therefore, the insurance company may not be saddled with the interest.

¶33

10.It is to be seen that the application under Order 41 Rule 27 was filed after a considerable period of time, therefore in the interest of justice, this Court quantifies the interest to Rs.3,00,000/- in addition to the enhanced amount. The total compensation comes to Rs.25,10,200/- to be deposited within a period of 60 days .

¶34

11.The appeal is allowed in part. All pending applications are disposed off. Sd/-

¶35

Sd/- -

¶36

(Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge

¶37

Deepti

Smt. Sangeeta Chandak v. Bhanwar Lal Rathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sangeeta Chandak v. Bhanwar Lal Rathi

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

Somendra Pouranik Vs New Jeevan Bus Service

Smt. Jaya Vs Kamlesh

Univeb Sleepers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Deepak Kumar Tandan Vs Tejpal Sahu

Deleted (Etwa Ram Minj) (Died) Vs Krishna Kumar Singh

Smt. Bhan Bai Vs Akash Goyal