Shekhar Yadav vs Radheshyam Yadav
2022 Latest Caselaw 3132 Chatt

                                1

         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                     MAC No. 1075 of 2015

Shekhar Yadav & Another

                                                    ---- Appellants

                       Versus



Radheshyam & Another

                                               ---- Respondents

Post for pronouncement of order on 29 /04/2022

JUDGE 29 /04/2022

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Judgment Reserved on : 22.02.2022

Judgment Delivered on : 29 .04.2022

MAC No. 1075 of 2015

1. Shekhar Yadav S/o Tamradhwaj Yadav, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village- Bhothli, Police Station- Arang, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh Driver Of Motor Cycle No. C. G.- 04 - D. E.- 2057, Chhattisgarh

2. Chetan Lal Yadav S/o Tamradhwaj Yadav, R/o Village- Bhothli, Police Station- Arang, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh Driver Of Motor Cycle No. C. G.- 04 - D. E.- 2057

---- Petitioners

Versus

1. Radheshyam Yadav S/o Ghasu Yadav Aged About 44 Years R/o. Village- Bhothli, Police Station- Arang, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Smt. Dulari Bai W/o Radheshyam Yadav Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Bhothli, Police Station- Arang, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh Claimants

---- Respondent

For Petitioners : Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap Advocate on behalf of Shri P.K. Patel, Advocates For Respondents : Shri Satyendra Shrivas, Advocate on behalf of Shri Devershi Thakur, Advocate

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

C A V Order

29 /04/2022

This appeal has been preferred by the appellants assailing the

award dated 25.02.2015 passed by the Sixth Additional Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the "Tribunal") Raipur in Claim

Case No. 64/2013 whereby compensation of Rs. 4,41,200/- has been

awarded in favour of the respondents/claimants.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents/claimants who

are the parents of the deceased have filed claim petition under Section

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of their son on 01.05.2013

when Rameshwar Yadav was going on his bicycle along with Kamlesh

Yadav towards his house at village Bothili. It is alleged that on the way,

near the field of Manharan Sahu, at about 8.00 p.m. the motorcycle

bearing registration No. CG-04 DE 2057, came from behind and he

met the accident with the offending vehicle being driven by appellant

No.1 due to rash and negligent driving resulting his death on account

of injury on his head after being shifted to Mekahara Hospital,Raipur. A

claim case was filed by the respondents/claimants claiming

compensation of Rs. 7,15,000/- from the appellants inter alia pleading

that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the offending vehicle.

3. The appellants denied the allegations in their written statement

and also denied the contents of the claim petition and submitted that

on the date of incident, deceased Rameshwar Yadav and Kamlesh

Yadav were intoxicated as a result of which they fell down near the

field of Manharan Sahu and Rameshwar Yadav sustained injury on his

head resulting his death. It is further submitted that the deceased died

on account of his own negligence and therefore the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be dismissed.

4. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, learned

Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 4,41,200/- in favour of the

respondents/claimants. Hence, the present appeal filed by the

appellants.

5. Counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has failed to

appreciate that any such incident has occurred and it is only for getting

compensation, the motorcycle of the appellants was involved and a

false report has been lodged against the appellant No.1. He submits

that the Tribunal has erred in law while assessing the annual income

of the deceased by applying 30% future prospects though the

deceased was not permanently employed anywhere. He further

submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of

18 though the deceased was unmarried and the multiplier ought to

have been applied considering the age of the claimants. He further

submits that the learned claims tribunal ought to have determined the

contributory negligence of the deceased as on the date of alleged

accident, deceased and Kalmesh Yadav have consumed liquor and

the accident occurred on account of their own negligence. He submits

that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in directing the appellants

to pay interest @ of 9% per annum which is on the higher side and

therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents/claimants

supported the impugned award and submits that the Tribunal has

awarded the amount which is very much on the lower side and needs

to be enhanced suitably.

7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available

on record.

8. Before the learned Tribunal, claimants have filed certified copy

of the criminal case which was filed against the appellant No.1.

Radheshyam (AW-1) has stated that the final report is Ex.P-1, FIR is

Ex.P-2, notice to Mekahara Hospital is Ex.P-3, Investigation Report of

Mekahara is Ex.P-4, postmortem report is Ex.P5, seizure memo is

Ex.P-6 and arrest memo is Ex.P-7. Appellant No.1 (NAW-1) has

admitted in his cross-examination that charge sheet has been filed

against him at police station Arang and during the course of

investigation, his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG04DE2057

was seized. It is also true that the criminal case is pending against him

in relation to the said accident before the Court at Raipur. The trial

court has also found that the accident is the result of rash and

negligent driving of the appellant No.1 and this finding is based on

proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. Learned trial

court has calculated the income, dependency, future prospects and

other expenses (para 23 to 32) on the basis of Hon'ble Apex Courts

various judgments and awarded compensation of Rs. 4,41,000/- in

favour of the respondents/claimants. This calculation is also based on

proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and in view of

the principles/guidelines of the Apex Court the appeal filed by the

appellants has no merits..

9. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper

and does not call for any interference. Thus, I do not find any scope for

enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on

account of assessment of the income of the deceased or claimants'

dependency or the multiplier selected.

9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the

appellants being devoid of merits is liable to be and is accordingly

dismissed.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey) Judge suguna