Prakash Yadav Vs Pramod Benjamin

1 - Pramod Benjamin S/o Jyotish Benjamin, Ward No. 23, Bhatapara, Janjgir, P.S. And Tahsil Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh..........(Driver of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. 14/A-1591),

¶13

2 - Radhaballabh Paliwal S/o Buddhulal R/o Kuber Para, Ward No.3, Naila, P.S. And Tahsil Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.........(Owner of The Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. 14/A-1591),

¶14

3 - United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office T.P. Nagar, Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh...........(Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. 14/A-1591),

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Appellants	: Ms. Ankita Goswami appears on behalf of Shri
	Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate.
For Respondent 1	: None.
For Respondent 2	: Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, Advocate.
For Respondent 3	: Shri Akash Shrivastava appears on behalf of Shri
	R.N.Pusty,Advocate.

¶17

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)

¶18

CAV Judgment

¶19

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles

¶20

2

¶21

Act, 1988 (for short, the MV Act) by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- awarded in Claim Case No.37/2018 vide award dated 04.01.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir-Champa (for short, 'the Tribunal).

¶22

2. Briefly stated the facts of the story is that on 04.02.2018 at 9.00 am, when Prashant Yadav was returning on his cycle to his home from Naila Railway Station, he was knocked down to death by the Truck bearing registration No.CG-14-A-1591 (for short ‘the offending vehicle’), being driven by its driver – Pramod Benjamin (Non-applicant No.1) in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted in, his death after sustaining grievous injuries over his body. It is not disputed that the offending vehicle was owned by Non-applicant No.2 and insured by Non-applicant No.3/insurer.

¶23

3. On a claim petition filed on behalf of the appellants/claimants, the Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence, oral as well as documentary, awarded Rs.3,50,000/- as total compensation, along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realisation. After deducting Rs. 2,00,000/-, which had already been paid by Radhaballabh Paliwal (Non-applicant No. 2/owner), the Tribunal directed the Non-applicant No. 3/insurer to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the claimants, with liberty to recover the same from Non-applicants No. 1 and 2, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, this appeal by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶24

4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the Tribunal has committed an illegality in awarding meagre amount of compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-, which deserves to be enhanced. She

¶25

3

¶26

further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing income at Rs.30,000/- per annum on notional basis which is on lower side and even if the provisions of minimum wages would apply on the date of accident, then he being a labourer could have easily earned Rs.7,930/per month. She further contended that loss of income towards future prospects has also not been awarded by the Tribunal. Moreover, reasonable amounts on other conventional heads have also not been awarded by the Tribunal. In support, he relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, N ational Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130.

¶27

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Non-Applicant No.2 submitted that no separate appeal has been filed. He further submitted that Non-applicant No.2- owner of the offending vehicle has already paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the claimants after the accident and there is no ground for further enhancement.

¶28

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent 3/insurance company, while admitting that no separate appeal has been preferred by the insurer against the impugned award, submitted that just compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal and no interference is called for.

¶29

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

¶30

8. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence adduced by the

¶31

4

¶32

claimants, has answered the issue No.1 in affirmative by holding the Non-applicant No.1 is liable for accident, which resulted into the death of deceased Prashant Yadav.

¶33

9. Now I shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.3,50,000/awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation.

¶34

10. A.W.1 Prakash Yadav has stated that his son Prashant Yadav (deceased) was a painter. The Tribunal has assessed the income of Rs.30,000/- per annum on notional basis. The income of the deceased on notional basis assessed by the Tribunal is on lower side. Even if the provisions of Minimum Wages would apply on the date of accident, then he being a labourer could have easily earned Rs.7,930/- per month I, therefore, propose to reassess the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,930/- per month. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 17 years, therefore, the applicable multiplier would be 18. Moreover, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding future prospects. The claimants are also entitled to be awarded future prospects as at the time of accident the deceased was aged 17 years and below 40 years, therefore, the applicable percentage would be 40% and that, the amounts awarded under other conventional heads is not just and proper.

¶35

11. Taking guidance from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), this Court re-computes the compensation in the following manner :-

¶36

Sl.	Description	Amount in Rs.
No.
1.	Income of the deceased @ Rs.7,930/- per	95,160/-
	month(Rs.7,930/- x 12)

¶37

5

¶38

2.	40% of (1) above to be added towards futureprospects(Rs.38,064/-)	38,064/-
3.	Total annual income of the deceased	1,33,224/-
4.	Towards personal and living expenses - 50% deduction would be applicable as he is unmarried.	66,612/-
5.	Multiplier of 18 applied to assess total annual income	11,99,016/-
5.	Towards conventional heads (loss of consortium)	80,000/-
6.	Funeral expenses and loss of estate	30,000/-
	Total compensation	13,09,016/-
	Award of the learned Tribunal.(-)	3,50,000/-
	Enhanced amount by this Court	9,59,016/-

¶39

12. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. Hence, the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.9,59,016/-. 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 impugned award stands modified to the above extent. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶40

13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(Radhakishan Agrawal)

¶43

Judge

¶44

Prakash

Prakash Yadav v. Pramod Benjamin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Yadav v. Pramod Benjamin

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

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Kunjami Somaram

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Vinod @ Kariya

Arun Dashmale Vs Rambharos Sahu

Atul Shukla Vs Shri Krishna Kumar Agrawal

Setkumar Behra Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dhanraj Agarwal Vs Hulesh Satnami