Chattisgarh High Court
The United India Insurance ... vs Ramnarain Sahu And Ors on 14 March, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MAC No. 788 of 2015
1. The United India Insurance Company Limited, through Its Branch
Manager, Madina Building, Jail Road, Raipur, Tehsil And District-
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Ramnarain Sahu, S/o Late Anand Ram Sahu R/o Village Ranisagar,
P.S. And Tehsil Arang, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Smt. Kiran Sahu Wd/o Late Shri Pawan Sahu Aged About 23 Years
R/o Village Ranisagr, P.S. And Tehsil- Arang, District- Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
3. Ku. Hansu Sahu D/o Late Shri Pawan Sahu Aged About 3 Years Minor
Through Guardian Mother Smt. Kiran Sahu.
4. Ganguram Sahu S/o Bachchan Sahu Aged About 56 Years R/o Village
Ranisagr, P.S. And Tehsil Arang, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
5. Smt. Dhela Bai W/o Ganguram Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village
Ranisagr, P.S. And Tehsil Arang, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
6. Sunderlal Sahu S/o Ganguram Sahu Aged About 18 Years R/o Village
Ranisagr, P.S. And Tehsil Arang, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
7. Khilavan Sahu S/o Ganguram Sahu Aged About 16 Years Minor
Through Guardian Father Ganguram Sahu, R/o Village Ranisagr, P.S.
And Tehsil Arang, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
_____________________________________________________________
For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 2 to 7 : Mr. Yashwant Tiwari, Mr. Amiyakant
Tiwari and Mr. Sunil Patel, Advocates.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Order On Board
14/03/2022
1. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurer/Insurance Company
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as 'M.V. Act') being aggrieved by the award dated
21.04.2015 passed by the Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims
Tribunal') in Claim Case No.221 of 2011 whereby learned Claims
Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 7,06,700 as total
compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
2. Respondents No. 2 to 7 are the legal heirs of the deceased and have
claimed compensation of Rs. 27,50000/- by filing a claim petition
under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act for the death of deceased Pawan
Sahu in the motor accident.
3. Brief facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 06.10.2009,
deceased Pawan Sahu was traveling as the pillion rider along with
Respondent No.1 on a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-04-DK-
5851 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') from Kachna to his
village Ranisagar. When they were reached near village Baradera, the
offending vehicle was dashed by an unknown 'dumper', as a result of
which Pawan Sahu died. Therefore, Respondents No. 2 to 7 have
preferred an application under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act.
4. The Appellant/insurer challenged the impugned judgment mainly on
the ground that as the application of claim was submitted under
Section 163-A of the M.V. Act only, therefore, Claims Tribunal ought to
have been calculated the compensation amount only in accordance
with the formula as provided under Second Schedule of the Act and
not in other manner.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondents No. 2 to 7
supports the impugned award and submits that the Tribunal has
considered all the relevant aspects of the matter and has rightly
awarded the compensation, which needs no interference by this Court.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
7. There is no dispute on the point that the claimants have filed an
application under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. On the basis of
evidence available on record, Claims Tribunal has rightly arrived on
the conclusion that yearly income of the deceased was Rs. 36,000/-.
8. Relying upon the judgment of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121,
Claims Tribunal has deducted 1/4th income of the deceased towards
personal expenses but, the claimants have claimed compensation
under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, therefore, as contained in
Second Schedule of the Act, it should be a deduction of 1/3rd income
towards personal expenses of the deceased.
9. The Claims Tribunal also relying the judgment of Smt. Sarla Verma
(supra), applied multiplier of 17. Since, the deceased was aged about
29 years therefore, multiplier should be applied 18 instead of 17.
10. The Claims Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 10,000/- for funeral
expenses and awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- as loss of consortium to the
spouse which is not permissible. Since, the claim petition was filed
under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, therefore, as contained in
Second Schedule, the claimants are entitled for Rs. 2,000/- for funeral
expenses, Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 2,500/- for loss
of estate.
11.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the claimants
are held entitled for compensation in the following manner:
SI.No. Heads Calculation (in rupees)
1. Income of the deceased @ Rs. Rs. 36,000/- per annum (as
3,000/- per month assessed by the Tribunal)
2. 1/3rd deduction towards personal (Rs. 36000/- - Rs. 12,000/-)
and living expenses of the deceased
Rs. 24,000/-
3. Multiplier of 18 applied Rs. 24,000/- x 18 = Rs. 4,32,000/-
4. Loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/-
5. Loss of estate Rs. 2500/-
6. Funeral expenses Rs. 2000/-
Total Compensation 4,41,500/-
Thus, the Claimants are awarded Rs. 4,41,500/- instead of Rs.
7,06,700/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The
amount of compensation of Rs. 7,06,700/- awarded by the Claims
Tribunal is reduced to Rs. 4,41,500/-. The amount of compensation of
Rs. 4,41,500/- shall carry interest as ordered by the Claims Tribunal.
The award is modified to the above extent. Rest of the conditions of
the award shall remain intact.
13. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge
Shubham
