Smt. Pinki Patel Vs (Deleted) Rajesh Kumar Yadav

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 911 of 2016

¶5

Smt. Pinki Patel Wd/o Late R.K. Patel, Aged About 19 Years R/o- Ward No. 10 , Village Bhanpuri, Anda, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh,, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

Smt. Jimala Bai, W/o N.K. Patel, Aged About 45 Years R/o- Ward No. 10, Village- Bhanpuri, Anda, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh,, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

Nand Kumar Patel S/o Late Jethu Lal Patel, Aged About 55 Years R/o- Ward No. 10, Village- Bhanpuri, Anda, DistrictDurg, Chhattisgarh,.......... Claimants, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

---- Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

(Deleted) Rajesh Kumar Yadav As Per Honble Court Order Dated. 25/04/2024.

¶11

Khemchand Sahu, S/o Bisouha Sahu, R/o- Village- Furdi, Post- Dundera, P.S. Arjunda, DistrictBalod, Chhattisgarh, Owner Of Ishar No. Cg-07, Ca-1260,, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

United India Insurance Company Limited, Paras Complex, Infront Of State Bank Near Gurudwara, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, Insurer Of Ishar No. Cg07, Ca- 1260,, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

For Appellants/Claimants	: Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. G.P. Mathur, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 2	: Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 3	: Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of
	Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate.

¶15

2

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

(08.05.2024)

¶19

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicel Act, 1988, against the award dated 01.04.2016 passed by the learned Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 83/2015 (“Smt. Pinki Patel & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Yadav & Ors.”) whereby an amount of Rs. 5,82,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded in the favour of the wife & parents of the deceased for their irreparable loss.

¶20

The averment in the claim petition, in brief, is that on 05.10.2014 at about 12:30 p.m. deceased (Rishi Kumar Patel) was going to his matrimonial home in his motorcycle and when he reached near Village-Kuthrel, Juice Factory, respondent No. 1-Rajesh Kumar Yadav (died) was coming from opposite side driving the offending Truck Eicher bearing Registration No.C G 07/C.A.-1260 in rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. It is stated that on the date of the accident, the age of the deceased (Rishi Kumar Patel) was 23 years. The deceased was involved in the work of centering work and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month from his work. Due to the casual death of the deceased, there is an irreparable loss to the appellants/claimants. Therefore, the appellants/claimants (wife and parents of the deceased) preferred an application claiming a total compensation of Rs. 27,80,000/-.

¶21

After considering the evidence and documents brought on record, the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at

¶22

3

¶23

Rs. 3,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum. After deduction of 1/3 of the income i.e. Rs. 12,000/- for personal expenses, the annual dependency was taken as Rs. 24,000/-. Considering the age of the deceased to be 23 years and the appellants/claimants are the wife and parents of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 4,32,000/-. Further Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 25,000/- towards love and affection and Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 5,82,000/- in favour of the wife and parents of the deceased with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. He further submits that the claimants had pleaded the income of the deceased as Rs. 10,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum, but the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased only Rs. 3,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum and total compensation of Rs. 5,82,000/- has been awarded including the amount of other conventional heads of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The learned counsel urged that the tribunal erred in not considering future prospects while computing compensation as it failed to appreciate that the deceased could have earned much more if he had not met with the accident as he was only aged about 23 years. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably.

¶25

4

¶26

On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondents that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement.

¶27

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶28

In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza.

¶29

Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs. 5,82,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

¶30

As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/-. per month from his work, but no evidence in this regard has been produced by the claimants. Therefore, in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of the deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, price index and cost of living etc. espcially notification by Labour Department for minimum wages. Upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 5,517/- per month as minimum wages, at the relevant time of accident i.e. 05.10.2014, the annual income comes to Rs. 66,204/per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 26,482/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 92,686/-.

¶31

Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 23

¶32

5

¶33

years and the appellant/claimants are the wife & parents of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3 (Rs. 30,895/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 61,791/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 11,12,238/-. The claimants are further entitled for Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses. As per ' Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189 , the claimants are further entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each for loss of love and affection and consortium totaling Rs. 1,20,000/-. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. wife and parents of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 12,62,238/- in the following manner:-

¶34

S.No.	Heads	Calculation
01	Towards loss of dependency	Rs. 11,12,238/-
02	Towards loss of estate	Rs. 15,000/-
03	Towards love and affection to all the four claimants @ Rs. 40,000/-	Rs. 1,20,000/-
04	Funeral Expenses	Rs. 15,000/-
	Total	Rs. 12,62,238/-

¶35

Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 12,62,238/-. After deducting Rs. 5,82,000/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 6,80,238/-.

¶36

6

¶37

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants i.e. wife and parents of the deceased shall be entitled to Rs. 6,80,238/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.

¶38

The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Tribunal below. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a coordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants resides.

¶39

Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶40

Raghu Jat

Smt. Pinki Patel v. (Deleted) Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

Smt. Pinki Patel v. (Deleted) Rajesh Kumar Yadav

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

Deleted (Ram Saran) (Died) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shakuni and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kanhaiya Lal and Brother and Ors. Vs Pradeep Parper Mart

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Deleted (Premsai)

Tijau Ram Verma Lodhi Vs Chatur Singh Rajbhar

Smt. Pratibha Rai Vs Mahendra Bante