Partly allowed

Smt. Jayantri Bai Markam v. Thakurram Yadav

Chhattisgarh HC5 Feb 2024MAC/991/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the compensation of Rs. 4,79,000 awarded by the Tribunal and enhancing it to Rs. 8,09,150 based on an upgraded estimated monthly income and multiplier, directing the insurer to deposit the difference with interest.

What did the court decide?

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal was enhanced from Rs. 4,79,000 to Rs. 8,09,150, with the difference of Rs. 3,30,150 payable with 6% interest.

Smt. Jayantri Bai Markam Vs Thakurram Yadav — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 991 of 2018

¶5

Smt. Jayantri Bai Markam, Wd/o Late Siyaram Markam, aged about 55 Years,

¶6

Smt. Sangeeta Kunjam, D/o Late Siyaram Kunjam, aged about 35 Years, W/o Asharam, R/o Village Karridih Tahsil and District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

Manish Kumar Markam, S/o Late Siyaram Markam, aged about 20 Years,

¶8

Ku. Bhumita Markam, D/o Late Siyaram Markam, aged about 16 Years,

¶9

Ku. Vinita Markam, D/o Late Siyaram Markam, aged about 13 Years,

¶10

Ku. Jailalita Markam, D/o Late Siyaram Markam, aged about 9 Years, Nos. 4 to 6 are minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Jayantri Bai Markam, aged about 55 Years, Wd/o Late Siyaram Markam, All are R/o Village Achhota, Tahsil and District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

----Appellants

¶12

Versus

¶13

Thakurram Yadav, S/o Hirauram Yadav, aged about 25 Years, R/o Village Kasrudih, Police Station Panduka, Tahsil and District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. (Driver of Offending Tractor Bearing Registration No. CGO4- DM- 9642)

¶14

Deepak Kumar Dhruv, S/o Geetaram Dhruv, aged about 32 Years, R/ o Village Murmura, Police Station Panduka Police Station Tahsil and District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. (Owner of Offending Tractor Bearing Registration No. CG04-DM-9642)

¶15

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, E-8, Rico Industrial Area Satpura Jaipur, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) (Insurer of Offending Tractor Bearing Registration No. CG04-DM-9642)

¶16

---- Respondents

¶17

For Appellants : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Tessy Abraham, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate.

¶18

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶20

Judgment on Board

¶21

06/02/2024

¶22

This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) challenging the award dated 11.01.2018, passed in Claim Case No. 136/2016 by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtri, (CG). By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs.22,10,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.4,79,000/- in favour of the claimants with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till its realization on account of death of deceased Siyaram Markam, in an unfortunate accident that took place on 21.02.2016 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Tracker bearing registration No. CG04-DM-9642 driven by the respondent No. 1 / driver, owned by respondent No. 2 / owner and insured with respondent No. 3 / insurance company.

¶23

As per the pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was aged about 58 years, he was working as labour and was earning Rs.200/per day and there are total six dependents upon the deceased.

¶24

The respondents filed their written statement and denied the averments of the claim application and insurance company is taking a plea that there is a violation of the Insurance policy conditions. The Tribunal having framed the issues decided the same in favour of the appellant-claimants and awarded the above stated compensation.

¶25

¶26

Shri Anil Gulati, Advocate, submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager and just compensation may be awarded by making suitable enhancement in impugned award.

¶27

Shri Tessy Abraham, Advocate, supports the impugned award and submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not require any interference by this Court.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶29

The date of incident is 21.02.2016 and it appears that wife, three minor children and two major children are shown as dependent upon the deceased in the claim application. The Tribunal found the age of the deceased to 60 years on the basis of postmortem report and found the monthly income of deceased to Rs.4,500/- and after calculating the compensation, awarded the afore-stated sum.

¶30

Considering the number of dependents upon the deceased; the age of the appellants and the deceased; nature of job; prevailing minimum wages and also considering the date of accident, this Court holds that the deceased was earning Rs.6,500/- per month. Taking guidance from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 this Court computes the compensation in the following manner:-

¶31

¶32

S. No.	Description	Amount
1.	Monthly income	6,500/-
2.	10% Future prospect	650/-
3.	Total Monthly Income (6500 + 650)	7,150/-
4.	Total Yearly Income (7,150x12)	85,800/-
5.	1/4 Deduction for personal expenses of deceased	21,450/-
6.	Net income	64,350/-
7.	Multiplier of 9 applied to assess total loss of dependency	5,79,150/-
8.	Funeral Expenses	15,000/-
9.	Loss of estate	15,000/-
10.	Spousal consortium to appellant No.1	40,000/-
11.	Parental Consortium to appellant Nos. 3 to 6	1,60,000/-
	Total compensation	8,09,150/-

¶33

For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs.4,79,000/- awarded by learned tribunal is enhanced to Rs.8,09,150/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.4,79,000/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.3,30,150/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the appeal. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent.

¶34

¶35

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within 60 days. The Tribunal shall pass appropriate order for their apportionment, investment and disbursement.

¶36

No cost.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶39

Vaibhav

Smt. Jayantri Bai Markam v. Thakurram Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jayantri Bai Markam v. Thakurram Yadav

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

Smt. Karfulo Mahanand Vs Pradeep Bharati

Jaggu @ Jageshwar Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Krishna Das Mahant Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Annu Singh Vs Vinod Singh

Deepa Sidar Vs Liladhar Prasad Chandra

Smt. Amrit Bai Rajput Vs Vijay Ram Parginha