✦ Chhattisgarh High Court · 18 Jun 2024

Smt. Indu Yadav v. Ramakant Nayak

BILASPUR MAC No. 1754 of 2019SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT5 min read

Case at a glance

Decided
18 Jun 2024
Bench
SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT

Outcome

Allowed

The appeal is allowed in part

Key paragraphs

  • Para 1010. The appeal is allowed in part. Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Deepti

Judgment

Shri A.L.Singroul, Advocate Shri Animesh Pathak, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 18/06/2024

1.

This appeal is arising out of award dated 28/01/2019 passed in claim case 2 No.278/2017 by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs.27,00,000/-, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.6,05,500/- in favour of the appellants / claimants on account of death of deceased – Suresh Yadav in an accident that occurred on 22/03/2016 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.OD-09 E-4686 by respondent No.1 / driver, owned by respondent No.2/owner and insured with respondent No.3/insurance company.

2.

As per pleadings of the claim application, the deceased – Suresh Yadav was aged about 26 years at the time of accident, he was a truck driver and was earning Rs.7,500/- per month. The claim application was resisted by the respondents 1 and 2 on various grounds. The insurance company took a plea that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

3.

On the basis of above broad pleadings, learned Tribunal framed issues, decided those issues in favour of the appellants / claimants and awarded aforestated compensation.

4.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal erred in giving a finding of contributory negligence to the extent of 50% on the part of the deceased driver. He further submits that the income of the deceased has wrongly been assessed, compensation on all other heads is also on the lower side. Therefore, suitable enhancement may be made.

5.

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that from the evidence on record it is established that the deceased was driving on the wrong side of the high way and on the basis of the spot map, the finding of contributory negligence arrived at by the learned Tribunal which does not require any interference.

6.

First this Court would like to deal with the submission of counsel for the appellant with regard to contributory negligence. 3

7.

Learned Tribunal after meticulous examination of evidence available on record came to a categoric finding that the deceased was driving the truck bearing registration No.CG-04 JD-5370 was coming from the right side of the divider of the high way whereas the driver of the offending vehicle was on the correct side of the divider. It was further observed by the learned Tribunal that both the drivers were driving rashly and negligently. The finding so recorded by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. Therefore, it is hereby maintained.

8.

This leads to the second question. As per pleadings, the deceased was a driver and was earning Rs.7500/- monthly and Rs.200/- for diet. Learned Tribunal presumed that the deceased was a driver. Since the deceased died while driving the truck and also considering the number of dependents, age of the deceased and the nature of job, this Court is assessing his monthly income as 7500/-. *- Taking guidance from the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and ors, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court hereby computes the compensation in the following manner -

5. Monthly income Future prospects 40% (7500 + 3000) Rs.7,500/- Rs.10500/- Yearly income (10500 x12) Rs.126000/- 1/4th deduction for personal expenses (126000-31500) Rs.94500/- Multiplier of 17 (94500 X 17) Rs.1606500/- (loss of dependency) Since the finding of contributory negligence is maintained, after deducting 4 50% from the loss of dependency, the amount comes to Rs.8,03,250/-.

7. Funeral expenses + loss of Estate+ Spousal consortium +Rs.70,000/- parental Filial Consortium (Rs.40,000/- each to appellants No.2 to 5) +Rs.1,60,000/- TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.1033250/-

9.

The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,05,550/- which is deducted from the total compensation now awarded and the enhanced compensation comes to Rs.4,27,750/-. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, interest @ 6% is also awarded on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of claim application to be deposited by the insurance company within a period of 60 days. After the amount of compensation is deposited by respondent No.3/insurance company, learned Tribunal shall pass appropriate order for apportionment, investment and disbursement.

Operative part

10.

The appeal is allowed in part. Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Deepti

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal is allowed in part

Which court decided this case, and when?

Chhattisgarh High Court, on 18 Jun 2024. The bench was SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Chhattisgarh High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. BILASPUR MAC No. 1754 of 2019). ← Search more judgments