Partly allowed

Smt. Meenabai v. Omprakash

Chhattisgarh HC6 Nov 2024MAC/676/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, increasing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the death caused by a negligent road accident. The Court modified the award to include 25% for future prospects and additional amounts for funeral, estate, and loss of consortium.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part with modification; additional compensation of Rs. 1,40,500 awarded, making total Rs. 10,67,500.

Smt. Meenabai Vs Omprakash — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH YADAV YADAV Date: 2024.11.08 12:18:34 +0530

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 676 of 2016

¶6

1. Smt. Meenabai W/o Late Shri Ramlal Dhimar, aged about 40 years

¶7

2. Narendra Kumar S/o Late Shri Ramlal Dhimar, aged about 19 Years

¶8

3. Ku. Renuka D/o Late Shri Ramlal Dhimar, aged about 16 years

¶9

4. Rudrakumar S/o Late Shri Ramlal Dhimar, aged about 13 years (Appellant No. 3 and 4 since minor through legal guardian Smt. Meenabai appellant No. 1 in the present appeal)

¶10

All R/o Village: Sivani, Tahsil: Balod, Civil & Revenue District: Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Appellants

¶12

Versus

¶13

1. Omprakash S/o Bhagatram Sahu, R/o Ward No. 20, Gandhi Chawk Dallirajhara, P.S. Rajhara, Tahsil: Daundi, Civil & Revenue District: Balod, Chhattisgarh (Driver of the Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Reg. No. CG 07 C 3818)

¶14

2. Hardeepsingh Bagga S/o Swaroopsingh Bagga, R/o Mainroad, Near Asha Takiz Dallirajhara, Tahsil: Daundi, Civil & Revenue District: Balod, Chhattisgarh (Owner of the Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. CG 07 C 3818

¶15

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Near Mama Bhanja Majar, Ganj Lines Rajnandgaon, Tahsil: Rajnandgaon, Civil and Revenue District: Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

¶18

For Appellants	:	Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate
For Respondent Nos. 1
& 2	:	None, though served.
For Respondent No. 3	:	Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate with Mr.
		Prerna Agrawal, Advocate

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board

¶20

07.11.2024

¶21

1. This appeal is by the claimants against the award dated 08.03.2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 82 of 2015 awarding total compensation of Rs. 9,27,000/- with interest @ 8 % per annum from the date of application till realization, while fastening liability on the respondents, jointly and severally.

¶22

2. As per claim petition, on 08.09.2015, the appellant No. 1 along with her husband Ramlal (deceased) was coming from Village: Khallari towards their Village: Shivani on motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 07 LL 5356 which was being driven by the deceased Ramlal and when they reached near Village: Danitola, the respondent No. 1 by driving the vehicle Truck bearing registration No. CG 07 C 3818 (hereinafter referred as ‘the offending vehicle’) in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died. At the time of accident, offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2 and duly insured with respondent No. 3.

¶23

3. On claim petition being filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the

¶24

¶25

Motor Vehicles Act for compensation to the tune of Rs. 75,43,000/- on various heads, the Tribunal considering the evidence led by both the parties passed an award as mentioned above in para 1 of this judgment.

¶26

4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month whereas it should be Rs. 18,000/- per month as the deceased was running a grocery shop. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects and other conventional heads, which ought to have been awarded looking to the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Therefore, the amount of compensation needs to be reassessed suitably.

¶27

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/insurance company, while admitting that no appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the impugned award, submits that the claimants have not filed any documents regarding the grocery shop and the income of the deceased and the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, which needs no interference by this Court.

¶28

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned including the record of the Tribunal.

¶29

7. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs. 18,000/per month, but no documentary evidence has been produced by the claimants to substantiate the said fact. However, the Tribunal, on its own, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month , which in the considered opinion of this Court is just and proper and needs

¶30

¶31

no interference by this Court.

¶32

8. So far as future prospects is concerned, the Tribunal considering the pleadings, evidence, oral and documentary, available on record, determined the age of the deceased as 48 years, however, erred in not granting any amount towards future prospects. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) has considered 25% towards loss of future prospects for the persons who are aged between 40-50 years. Therefore, in the present case, the applicable percentage of future prospects would be 25%. If 25% is added to the total annual income then the total Annual Income would come to Rs. 90,000/- (Rs. 72,000+18,000/-). Learned Claims Tribunal has deducted 1/4 towards his personal and living expenses and if 1/4 amount i.e. Rs. 22,500/- is deducted from the total annual income, then the annual loss of dependency would come to Rs. 67,500/-. If the annual Loss of dependency is multiplied by 13, then the total Loss of Dependency would come to Rs. 8,77,500/-.

¶33

9. The claimants are also entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- towards Loss of Estate and Rs. 40,000/- to each appellants No. 1 to 4 towards loss of consortium, in view of principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 . Thus, a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- is assessed under such heads.

¶34

10. Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to get a sum of Rs. 10,67,500/- as total compensation in place of Rs. 9,27,000/-. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 9,27,000/- after deducting the same

¶35

¶36

from the above amount i.e. Rs. 10,67,500/-, the appellants herein are held entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 1,40,500/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. However, rest of the conditions of the

¶37

impugned award shall remain intact.

¶38

11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the impugned award to the above extent.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

( Radhakishan Agrawal )

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Saurabh

Smt. Meenabai v. Omprakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Meenabai v. Omprakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjlal and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shahajada @ Shahjad Ali Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Brijpal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Kamlesh Sahu Vs Rakesh Sahu

Smt. M. S. Lakshmi Vs a. B. C. Enterprises

Divisional Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited Vs Hari Singh Rajpoot