Ramnarayan Kevat Vs Jayanti Bai

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.04.04 10:42:48 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:15570

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 152 of 2018

¶7

Ramnarayan Kevat S/o Hemlal Kevat, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Bamhanidih, Police Station Bamhanidih And Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Bearing No. C.G.11/AB/2920)

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

Jayanti Bai Wd/o Rakesh Patel Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Bhadra, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Durgesh Patel S/o Late Rakesh Patel Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Jayanti Bai Wd/o Rakesh Patel, R/o Village Bhadra, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Durgeshwari Patel D/o Late Rakesh Patel Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Jayanti Bai Wd/o Rakesh Patel, R/o Village Bhadra, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶13

Dhaneshwari Patel S/o Late Rakesh Patel Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Jayanti Bai Wd/o Rakesh Patel, R/o Village Bhadra, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶14

Udalram S/o Sahadul Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Bhadra, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶15

2

¶16

Ganeshi Bai W/o Sahadul Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Bhadra, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶17

Ramkumar Kevat S/o Hemlal Kevat Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bamhanidih, Police Station Bamhanidih And Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶18

... Respondent(s)

¶19

For Appellant : Ms. Anushka Sharma, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶21

Order On Board

¶22

02.04.2025

¶23

1. This is an owner’s appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the award dated 18.09.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir-Champa (CG) in Claim Case No.88/2016.

¶24

2. In this case, the accident took place on 21/08/2016 at about 7:30 p.m. when the offending vehicle i.e. Mahindra Mexico bearing registration No.CG 11 AB 2920, owned by the appellant and being driven by respondent No.7 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle on which deceased Rakesh Patel was coming from village Bamhanidih to his village Bhadra, as a result of which, Rakesh Patel suffered grievous injuries and died during treatment in the hospital. The claimants, who are the wife, children and parents of the deceased, preferred a claim application before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs.46,82,200. Learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence brought on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.7,90,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum, from the date of application till its realization in favour

¶25

3

¶26

of the claimants and against the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle against which the present appeal has been filed by the owner.

¶27

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/owner has challenged the impugned award on two grounds; firstly the income assessed by the Tribunal is excessive as no documentary evidence has been brought on record by the claimants regarding the income of the deceased. Secondly, the age of the deceased has been determined by the Tribunal as 31-35 years which is erroneous and as per the accidental death information and Naxa Panchnama the age should have been 40 years. He submits that on the basis of these two grounds, the compensation calculated by the Tribunal is excessive which should be reduced suitably.

¶28

4. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents.

¶29

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

¶30

6. The first contention of the counsel for appellant is that the income assessed by the Tribunal is excessive. In the present case, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000 per month. Though the claimants have claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000 per month by working as a mason (Rajmistri) but no documentary evidence has been brought on record regarding his income. The accident occurred on 21.08.2016. As per the notification by Labour Department, the minimum wages of even an unskilled labour at that time was Rs.6107 which is less than the income determined by the Tribunal. Therefore, it cannot be said that the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal is excessive or on the higher side.

¶31

7. As regards the age of the deceased, the accidental death information and the Naxa Panchnama show the age of the deceased to be 40 years whereas in the application for Post-

¶32

4

¶33

mortem and its report, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 30 years. The claimants have also stated the age of the deceased to be 30 years in their claim application. The age of the son of the deceased is mentioned as 12 years. In such a situation, keeping all the facts in mind, the Tribunal has considered the average age of the deceased to be 31-35 years at the time of accident which seems to be proper.

¶34

8. In view of the same, this Court does not find any error or irregularity in the finding of the Tribunal regarding income and age of the deceased and no interference is required therein.

¶35

9. The appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed .

¶36

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶37

Khatai

Ramnarayan Kevat v. Jayanti Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramnarayan Kevat v. Jayanti Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhoku @ Puran Chand Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nuklesh Satnami @ Tetku Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Yashwant @ Ashwan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Radha Krishna Motwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Meera Bai Nag Vs Shridharan Nair

Hira Sahu Vs Gaurav Bhardwaj