Smt Chameli Rajput Vs Sarbind Kumar Yadav

1 - Sarbind Kumar Yadav S/o Shri B.R. Yadav, Aged About 30 Years R/o 7/1, Munshi Ganj Road, Kolkata (West Bengal) 700023 ................Driver Of Alleged Vehicle Bearing Registration No. W B-03-B/8584, West Bengal

¶12

2 - Rajib Dutta S/o Dilip Dutta, R/o A-A, Gourbari Lane, Near Arbindu Setu, Kolkata West Bengal 700004 ................Owner Of Alleged Vehicle Bearing Registration No. W B-03-B/8584,

¶13

3 - Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, Registered And Head Office- E- 8, E.P.I.P. Rico Industrial Area, Sitapur, Jaipur Rajasthan Pin Code 302022, Through Branch Manager, Plot No.1, 4th Floor, Maruti Heights Sarswati Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ................Insurer Of Alleged Vehicle Bearing Registration No. W B-03-B/8584, ... Respondents

¶14

For Appellants : ShriC.R.Sahu,Advocate
For Respondents 1 & 2 : Notice upon them is exempted.
For Respondent 3 : Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate.

¶15

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)

¶16

Judgment on Board

¶17

17/07/2025

¶18

This is claimants’ appeal seeking enhancement of compensation passed by 1^st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (Chhattisgarh) (for short, the Claims Tribunal) in Claim Case No.44/2014 vide impugned award dated

¶19

2

¶20

03.09.2016.

¶21

As per the pleadings of the claim application, the accident occurred on 16.07.2014. The deceased by name Prakash Singh Rajput, 24 years was returning to Bhiringi Barrack, Durgapur from Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Bhiringi main gate in a rickshaw after completing his duty from CISF Unit DSTPS Andal and when he reached 500 meters from Bhiringi CISF main gate, was knocked down to death by the offending Truck bearing registration No. WB-03-B/8584 (in short, the offending vehicle) being driven by Non-applicant No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, owned by Nonapplicant No.2 and insured by Non-applicant No.3/insurer, which led to the Claim Petition preferred by the appellants / claimants seeking total compensation of Rs.41,12,376/- stating, inter alia, that the deceased was working as Constable in CISF, 2^nd Batallion, Ranchi (Jharkhand) and used to earn Rs.17,511/- per month.

¶22

The claim application was resisted by the Non-applicant No.3/insurer on various grounds including that the insurance company taking a plea that there is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The respondents No.1 & 2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal as they did not file any written statement.

¶23

Learned Claims Tribunal framed issues on the basis of pleadings and decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants in Clam Case and awarded the compensation of Rs.29,04,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of award till its realisation and directed the Nonapplicants/respondents to pay the compensation jointly and severally while primarily holding the insurance company liable to indemnify.

¶24

Shri C.R.Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was a Rank Constable in C.I.S.F. and his salary was Rs.17,511/- per month and the learned Claims Tribunal, in para 11 of its impugned award, also assessed the deceased’s monthly income as such, but while computing

¶25

3

¶26

compensation, has rounded off to Rs.17,000/-, which is on lower side. On this premise, he urged that compensation of amount needs to be modified while taking into account the deceased’s monthly income as Rs.17,511/-. No other ground was urged.

¶27

On the other hand, Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3, while admitting that there is no appeal filed by the insurance company, submits that the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and reasonable and there is no scope for further enhancement.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including the evidence adduced by the parties.

¶29

So far as the monthly income of the deceased is concerned, admittedly the deceased, who was working as Rank Constable in the C.I.S.F., used to earn Rs.17,511/- which was his net salary, as is evident from the Ex.P.10, which is a salary slip and the learned Claims Tribunal also assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.17,511/- as mentioned in para 11 of its impugned award, however, it appears that while computing total compensation amount, the learned Claims Tribunal rounded off the same to Rs.17,000/- and when the Tribunal had already assessed the amount to be Rs.17,511/- as deceased’s monthly income, then why should the Tribunal have rounded off the same and straightaway it ought to have proceeded to compute the total compensation by considering the assessment of monthly income, i.e., Rs.17,511/- as shown in Ex.P.10. The approach of the Claims Tribunal in assessing the monthly income of the deceased on lower side is not just and proper.

¶30

The learned Claims Tribunal has answered the issue No.1 in affirmative by holding that Non-applicant No.1 was liable for cause of accident, resulting into death of deceased. Considering the material available on record and further considering the pay slip (Ex.P.10) showing net salary of the deceased

¶31

4

¶32

as Rs.17,511/- and also the fact that, the same was not challenged by the insurance company, this Court re-computes the compensation by taking into account the deceased’s monthly income as Rs.17,511-, in the following manner :-

¶33

Sl.	Description	Amount in Rs.
No.
1.	Income of the [email protected],511/-per month.	2,10,132/-
2.	50% of (1) above to be added towards future prospects	1,05,066/-
3.	Total annual income of the deceased	3,15,198/-
4.	1/2 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased (Rs.3,15,198/- – 1,57,599/-)	1,57,599/-
5.	Multiplier of 18 applied to assess total loss of dependency.	28,36,782/-
6.	On other conventional heads, as awarded by the Tribunal.	1,50,000/-
	Total compensation	29,86,782/-
	Award of the learned Tribunal.(-)	29,04,000/-
	Enhanced amount by this Court	82,782/-

¶34

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. Hence, the claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.82,782/-. The additional amount shall carry interest as made by the Tribunal from the date of passing of award by the Tribunal till its realisation. The enhanced amount with interest shall be deposited by the insurer. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE

¶37

Anjani

Smt Chameli Rajput v. Sarbind Kumar Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Chameli Rajput v. Sarbind Kumar Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neelam Sahu Vs Narad Nagwanshi

Neelam Sahu Vs Narad Nagwanshi

Raj @ Bade Sidar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Shringarika General Stores Vs Shri Iqbal Khan

Smt. Seema Vs Santosh Kumar

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Santosh Kumar