Ramakant Rathore Vs Kamal Prasad Yadav

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 78 of 2021

¶5

Ramakant Rathore S/o Late Shri Balaram Rathore Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Korbi, Tahsil Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶6

Smt. Sukrita Bai W/o Ramakant Rathore Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Korbi, Tahsil Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶7

Shraddha Rathore D/o Ramakant Rathore Aged About 19 Years Resident Of Korbi, Tahsil Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Sonali Rathore D/o Ramakant Rathore Aged About 18 Years Resident Of Korbi, Tahsil Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

Kamal Prasad Yadav S/o Ramchand Yadav Aged About 59 Years Resident Of Chorbhatthi, Pathariya, Ward No. 12, Yadav Para, Pathariya, District Mungeli , Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Commercial Building Floor, Dev Nagar Road, Near H.D.F.C. Bank, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Appellants/Claimants	: Ms. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate
For Respondent No. 2	: Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1	: None though served.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

0 7.01.2025

2

The appellants/claimants have assailed the award passed by the learned Additional Tribunal Katghora to Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) in claim case No. 36/2018 dated 15.10.2020, whereby, an award of Rs. 2,30,000/- has been passed in favour of the appellants/claimants.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the deceased, namely, Devi Prasad was driving a car bearing registration No. C.G. 10 AC 9988 along with Ravishankar Shriwas, Ajay Rathore, Tikaram Kenwat and Suraj. She would further submit that the driver of the vehicle lost control. She would also submit that Late Ajay Rathore died on the spot on 16.12.2017 at about 11.30 hours. She would contend that at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was 22 years and he was a graduate in Engineering. She would further contend that though he was not a Government Servant, he was earning Rs. 90,000/- per month. It is stated that the learned tribunal has awarded a meager amount of Rs. 2,30,000/-. She would pray to enhance the compensation.

¶22

On the other hand, Mr. Sourabh Sharma, counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 would oppose. He would submit that the learned tribunal after appreciating the material available on record has passed just and proper compensation. He would further submit that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving license.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶24

The learned tribunal has fastened liability on the owner of the vehicle, and there is an order of pay and recover in favour of the Insurance Company. Four claim cases were decided together by the learned tribunal. The learned tribunal found the age of the deceased as 22 years and assessed

¶25

3

¶26

the monthly income as Rs. 9,880/- as the deceased was not working anywhere and he has been treated as a skilled labour. The learned tribunal also added 40% for future prospects. The tribunal applied a multiplier of 18 looking to the age of the deceased. These findings appear to be proper and reasonable. The learned tribunal assessed dependency to the tune of Rs. 29,87,712/-.

¶27

The learned tribunal has not awarded the amount for the loss of consortium to the mother and father as the claimants No. 3 and 4 are major sisters of the deceased; therefore, the tribunal has rightly not allowed any amount on the head of loss of consortium. The tribunal has further granted Rs. 15,000/- each for funeral expenses and for loss of estate, but finally, the tribunal has awarded only Rs. 2,30,000/- to the appellants. The calculation made by the tribunal appears to be erroneous; therefore, the compensation payable to the claimants is stated herein below:-

¶28

(a) The total dependency assessed by the learned tribunal of Rs. 29,87,712/- is accepted.

¶29

(b) The learned tribunal has not awarded any amount for the personal expenses of the deceased. As the deceased was unmarried; therefore, there would be ½ deduction for personal expenses, then the amount of dependency would be 29,87,712 / 2 = 14,93,856.

¶30

(c) Claimants No. 1 and 2 who are parents would be entitled to get Rs. 40,000/- each for loss of parental consortium and the total amount would be Rs. 80,000/-.

¶31

(d) They would be entitled to get Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses and the total amount would be Rs. 30,000/-.

¶32

4

¶33

(e) The Grand Total shall be 16,03,856/-

¶34

The interest at the rate of 7% granted by the tribunal shall remain intact. The insurance company is directed to make payment of the enhanced amount preferably within a period of 60 days. The Insurance Company shall be at liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle as the driver did not have a valid driving license. Accordingly, the instant

¶35

appeal is partly allowed . d

¶36

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶37

$iddhant

Ramakant Rathore v. Kamal Prasad Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakant Rathore v. Kamal Prasad 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

Shyamlal Nayak Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chandrabhan Singh (Died and Deleted) Through LRs. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Darap Singh @ Devraj Vs Smt. Saraswati Devi

Ashok Kumar Dhruwe Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs Dhannulal Yadav