Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Leena vs Pradip Kumar on 9 November, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Reserved on 21.10.2021
Pronounced on 09.11.2021
M.A(C) No.521 of 2016
1. Smt. Leena W/o Late Hitendra Verma, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Aheri,
P.O. Dhor, Thana Nandini, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh
2. Bihari Lal S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Verma, Aged About 54 Years R/o Village
Aheri, P.O. Dhor, Thana Nandini, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh
3. Smt. Sunita W/o Bihari Lal Verma, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Aheri, P.O.
Dhor, Thana Nandini, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh
4. Tatwik S/o Bihari Lal Verma, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Aheri, P.O. Dhor,
Thana Nandini, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh
................Claimants --- Appellants
Versus
1. Pradip Kumar S/o Manbodh Sahu, Through Anup Yadav R/o Motipara, Near
Sharda Talkies, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Pin
491001 ..............Non Applicant No.1/ Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G. 07 E 1386,
Chhattisgarh
2. Anup Yadav S/o Shri Jugal Kishore Yadav, R/o Motipara, Near Sharda Talkies,
Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Pin 491001 ..............Non
Applicant No.2/ Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G. 07 E 1386, District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh
3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Regional Manager, Address
Kachhari Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..............Non
Applicant No.3/ Insurance Company/ Insurer Of Vehicle No. C.G. 07 E 1386,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ----Respondents
For Appellants: Shri Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 & 2: None.
For Respondent No.3: Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate.
Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J
C A V Judgment
1. This Appeal has been preferred by the Claimants under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') seeking
enhancement of the award dated 01.01.2016 passed by 1 st Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur (for short 'the Claims
Tribunal') in Claim Case No.527/2014, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a
total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.51,78,000/- with 7% interest
per annum from the date of filing of the claim Petition till its realization
2. The facts of the case in nut-shell are that on 23.08.2014 at around 4.45
pm, Respondent No.1, while driving the vehicle bearing Registration No.CG 07
E 1386 in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle bearing its
Registration No.CG 07 AM 7784 being driven by the deceased namely
Hitendra Verma on the opposite side of Balaji Trading Company, PS
Dhamdha, District Durg on account of which, the deceased Hitendra Verma
died.
3. On account of the said accident, the Claimants, who are the wife,
parents and brother of the deceased, instituted a claim Petition under Section
166 of the Act of 1988 by submitting inter alia that the deceased, a 30 year old,
was working as a Senior Branch Manager at Bank of India, Dhamdha Branch,
District Durg and used to earn Rs.70,000/- per month. The Claimants have,
thus, claimed a total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.2,36,28,000/-.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants/Claimants submits that
the Claims Tribunal, while passing the award impugned, has erred in awarding
a lump sum amount of Rs.51,78,000/- and failed to appreciate the evidence on
record in order to provide just and proper compensation to the Claimants.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company
opposed these arguments and supported the award passed by the Claims
Tribunal.
6. Heard, learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused
the records of the Claims Tribunal.
7. Bijay Patnaik (A.W.3) has proved the salary slip P-15 & P-16 of
deceased Hitendra Verma pertaining to the months of June and July 2014,
according to which he was getting salary of Rs. 53,917/- per month, in which
income tax was deducted @ Rs. 3,240/-per month. It is also not in dispute
that the deceased was 30 years of age. Therefore, looking to this evidence,
after following the settled principles relating to selection of multiplier of 17 for
the age group of 25-30 and 1/3 deduction for personal expenses, the Claims
Tribunal has correctly added 50% for future income from actual salary less tax
in accordance with the law laid down in the matter of National Insurance
Company Limited. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC
680 .
8. In the matter of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, at para 31, it has
been held that the father is likely to have his own income and will not be
considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a
dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters
will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent
and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. In the instant case,
father of the deceased is employee of Bhilai Steel Plant, so the Claims
Tribunal has correctly held that the father and brother were not dependants on
the deceased.
9. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (supra), conventional
heads namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should
be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively to be awarded but
the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.
10,000/- for love and affection and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium as the
Supreme Court had indicated only three heads. Therefore, under conventional
head Rs.70,000/- instead of Rs.20,000/- which was awarded by Claims
Tribunal has been modified. Other computation does not call for any
interference.
10. The Claims Tribunal has, in paras 8 to 10 of the impugned award,
properly analyzed the fact in detail and found reliance on the evidence of
Santosh Kumar Gond (A.W.2), eye witness and the spot map (Ex. D-1)
therein, which clearly reveals that the place of incident is Durg-Bemetara Road
and both the vehicles were coming from opposite side. Santosh (A.W.2)
stated that the road is wide having two lanes in both ways. He further
deposed that the bus could have been noticed from sufficient distance and
there was no traffic on the road. The Claims Tribunal correctly placed reliance
on the decision rendered in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd.vs. P.
Murugan & Others reported in 2009 ACJ 2411, wherein accident head on
collision between two vehicles occurred in the middle of broad road,
negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles is apportioned to the
extent of 50% each. In the said judgment, the Madras High Court has
observed in para 7 that the trite proposition of law that whenever there is
collision between two vehicles on a broad road, drivers of both the vehicles
should be equally made liable for the accident and cited the decision of the
Supreme Court in Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidya Dhar Dutta and others reported
in (2006) 3 SCC 242, in which, it was observed that it was but natural, as a
prudent man, for the deceased to have taken due care and precaution to avoid
head-on collision when he had already seen the bus coming from the opposite
direction from a long distance, the drivers of both the vehicles should be held
responsible to have contributed equally to the accident. So this Court does not
find any error on such finding about contributory negligence and
apportionment of equal liability of the deceased.
11. In light of the aforesaid discussion and modification, the
Claimants/Appellants No.1 & 3 are entitled to compensation as follows:
Sl. No. HEADS CALCULATION
1. Yearly Income from salary Rs. 6,08,000/-
2. Future Prospectus add 50% Rs. 3,04,000/-
TOTAL Rs. 9,12,000/-
3. Deduction : @ 1/3for Personal Rs. 3,04,000/-
Expenses
4. Compensation after Multiplier 17 is Rs.6,08,000X17 =
applied Rs.1,03,36,000/-
5. Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/-
6. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
7. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
TOTAL Rs.10,04,06,000/-
Deduction 50% for Contributory Rs.5,02,03,000/-
Negligence
Enhanced Amount Rs. 5,02,03,000-
5,01,07,8000= Rs. 25,000/-
Respondent No.3 Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced
amount of compensation with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing
of the Petition i.e. 16.09.2014 within a period of 60 days. The said enhanced
amount with interest be paid to Appellant No.1-widow of the deceased.
12. The Appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
Rest of the observations as made by the Claims Tribunal shall remain intact.
No order as to costs. Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge
Priya
