Smt. Karfulo Mahanand Vs Pradeep Bharati

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 81 of 2018

¶4

1 - Smt. Karfulo Mahanand W/o Late Murli Mahanand Aged About 36 Years;

¶5

2 - Ku. Devaki Mahanand D/o Late Murli Mahanand Aged About 20 Years;

¶6

3 - Ku. Amika Mahanand D/o Late Murli Mahanand Aged About 13 Years;

¶7

4 - Ku. Neelu Mahanand D/o Late Murli Mahanand Aged About 7 Years; No. 2 to 4 are minor Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Karfulo Appellant No.1.

¶8

All are R/o Krishna Nagar Kota, P.S. Saraswati Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh,

¶9

---- Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

1 - Pradeep Bharati S/o Balaram Bharati Aged About 19 Years R/o Satnamipara, Kota, Raipur, P. S. Saraswati Nagar, Distt. Raipur C. G. Driver Of Offending Vehicle Motorcycle No. C G - 04 K H - 6512,

¶12

2- Bhupendra Jangade S/o Dashrath Jangade Aged About 22 Years R/o Faish Gali, Gosai Bada, Neear Puran Sona Kirana Store, P. S. Gudhiyari, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Owner Of Offending Vehicle Motorcycle No. C G - 04 K H - 6512,

¶13

3 - ICICI Lombord General Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Commerce Building , Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Motorcycle No. C G - 04 K H - 6512,

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

For the Appellants : Mr. Vikram Pratap, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Adv. For respondent No.3 : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Adv. None for respondents No.1 & 2, though served.

¶16

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

¶17

05.02.2024

¶18

1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “ MV Act”) has been filed challenging the award dated 25.02.2017 passed by 8^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, (CG) in Claim Case No.684/2014. By the impugned award, the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.7,55,000/as compensation to the appellants/claimants on account of death

¶19

2

¶20

of deceased Murali Mahanand in an unfortunate accident which took place on 29.06.2014 by rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1/driver by offending vehicle i.e. Motorcycle bearing Registration No. C.G.-04/K.H.-6512, owned by respondent No.2/owner and insured with respondent No.3/insurance company.

¶21

As per the pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166, 140 of the MV Act, the deceased was working as a mason (Rajmistri) used to earn Rs.7,500/- per month. The appellants/claimants being widow and daughters of the deceased had filed the claim application claiming total compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

¶22

1. Respondent No.1 being ex- parte did not file his written statement. The claim application was resisted by respondent No.2/owner and respondent No.3/insurance company of the offending vehicle on various grounds.

¶23

1. The learned tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed issues and after appreciation of evidence and material available on record awarded the compensation as stated above.

¶24

1. Learned counsel for appellants/claimants submits that the impugned award by the claims Tribunal is bad in law, perverse, thus liable to be modified and enhanced. He further submits that learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5000/-. Apart from this, the compensation awarded on other heads is also on the lower side.

¶25

1. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 supported the award and submits that the compensation has rightly been awarded and does not require any interference by this Court.

¶26

3

¶27

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶28

1. Considering that the deceased Murali Mahanand on the date of accident was aged about 50 years, keeping in view the nature of his job, evidence available on record, number of dependents and minimum wages prevailing, this Court holds the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.5500/-. In light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (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 computing the compensation as below:-

¶29

S.N.	Particular	Awarded by this Court
1.	Monthly Income of the deceased	5500/-
2.	Future prospects @ 25%	1375/-
3.	Total yearly Income	6875x12=82,500/-
4.	Personal Expenditure (1/4th)	20,625/-
5.	Net Income	61,875/-
6.	Multiplier of 13 applied to assess total loss of dependency	8,04,375/-
7.	Funeral Expenses	15,000/-
8.	Loss of estate	15,000/-
9.	Spousal consortium	40,000/-
10.	Parental Consortium	1,20,000/- (40,000/-each)
11.	Total compensation	9,94,375/-

¶30

1. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs.7,55,000/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs.9,94,375/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.7,55,000/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.2,39,375/-, the additional amount shall carry interest

¶31

4

¶32

@6% per annum from the date of claim application. The insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within 60 days.

¶33

1. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. On deposit tribunal shall pass appropriate order with regard to apportionment, investment and disbursement of the enhance amount of compensation.

¶34

1. Appeal thus partly allowed.

¶35

Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶36

Parul

Smt. Karfulo Mahanand v. Pradeep Bharati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Karfulo Mahanand v. Pradeep Bharati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Sao Vs Jitendra Kumar Sao

Naval Singh @ Naval Kishore Komara Vs Laxminath Dhruv

Smt. Luxmi Devi Tamrkar Vs Mulchand

Jaggu @ Jageshwar Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Krishna Das Mahant Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Deepa Deshmukh Vs Banshi Ram