Chattisgarh High Court
Larence @ Lorendra Tigga ... vs Gourishankar Vishwakarma And Ors on 18 November, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Reserved on 17.11.2021
Pronounced on 18.11.2021
M.A(C) No.681 of 2015
1. Larence @ Lorendra Tigga (Deleted) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 08-11-
2021
2. Smt. Salomi Tigga W/o Smt. Larence @ Lorendra Tigga Aged About 50 Years
R/o Ward No. 9 Near Mata Rajmohani Devi Ward Housing Board Colony
Namnakala Naar- Ambikapur P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur- District - Surguja,
Chhattisgarh --- Appellants
Versus
1. Gourishankar Vishwakarma S/o Chhotelal Vishwakaram R/o Village
Bhalmatola Post- Khanuha P.S. - Tarai District- Singrouli, Madhya Pradesh,
2. Vijay Narayan Sah S/o Rajmani Sah R/o Village Charua Post- Rajmilan
Singarouli District- Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh,
3. Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Branch Office E.P.I.P.
Riko Industrial Area Sitapur, Rajasthan ----Respondents
For Appellant No.2: Shri AN Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 & 2: Notice dispensed with.
For Respondent No.3: Shri Raghavendra Verma appears on
behalf of Shri Deepak Gupta, Advocate.
Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J
C A V Judgment
1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the
Appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for
short 'the Act of 1988') questioning the legality and propriety of the award
dated 08.10.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur,
District Surguja (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.123/2013 whereby,
the Tribunal has awarded a total amount of compensation to the tune of
Rs.3,44,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim
Petition till its realization.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 12.06.2013 at about 3.30 pm,
when the son of the Appellants/claimants namely Animesh Tigga, the
deceased was returning from village Mani by his motorcycle to his house
along with his friend Raju, when they reached near village Pampapur,
Pratappur-Ambikapur road, the offending truck bearing its Registration
No.M.P66/H-0506 being driven by Respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent
manner, dashed the motorcycle resulting in the spot death of the deceased.
3. Being aggrieved, the claimants have preferred this Appeal. Learned
Counsel appearing for the Appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal,
while passing the award impugned, has erred in awarding a lump sum amount
of Rs.3,44,000/- and failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in
order to provide just and proper compensation to the claimants.
4. On the other hand, Counsel for Respondents have supported the award
impugned and submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in
awarding compensation as such.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record
carefully.
6. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the monthly income of
the deceased has not been properly assessed by the Tribunal. The deceased
was working at a mobile repair shop and used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month
but the Tribunal, without considering the material evidence available on record,
has wrongly assessed the same to be Rs.3,000/- and therefore, the impugned
award needs to be modified.
7. The age of the deceased Animesh Tigga is 20 years as per the
postmortem report (Ex.P-7). As per the statement of his father (AW-1), the
deceased was unmarried and studied upto 12 th standard and used to sit in the
shop of his younger brother. The Tribunal, has on the basis of no
documentary evidence, assessed the notional income of the deceased to be
Rs.3,000/- per month. As the incident took place on 12.06.2013, therefore,
looking to the substantial increase in the minimum wages, this Court finds it
proper to assess the notional income to be Rs.4,000/- per month.
8. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount for future prospects and as
per the dictum of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi And
Others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680, 40% of the income
for future prospects is required to be added.
9. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses, which is
required to be modified to Rs.15,000/-, Rs.5,000/- awarded for love and
affection has to be modified to Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium to parents,
only 5,000/- has been awarded for loss of estate, which is required to be
modified to Rs.15,000/-. The Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 18 and
50% for deduction of personal expenses is also proper as the deceased was a
bachelor, therefore, no interference is required on such aspects.
10. Consequently, the claimants are entitled to the following amounts as
compensation.
Sl.No. Mode of Compensation Amount in
(Rs.)
i. Income of the deceased Rs.4,000X12 48,000/-
ii. Future prospects @ 40% 19,200/-
Total income (48,000 + 19,200) 67,200/-
iii. For personal expenses deducted 50% 33,600/-
(67,200 - 33,600)
iv. For loss of dependency 33,600x18 6,04,800/-
v. For funeral expenses 15,000/-
vi. For loss of estate 15,000/-
vii. For loss of consortium to parents 40,000/-
Total 6,74,800/-
Awarded amount 3,44,000/-
Enhanced amount 3,30,800
11. Accordingly, the claimants would be entitled to a total sum of
Rs.6,74,800/- instead of Rs.3,44,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal with interest
@ 6 % per annum from the date of filing the claim Petition till the date of actual
payment.
12. In view of above, the Appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated
above. Rest of the observations made by the Tribunal shall remain intact. No
order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge
Priya
