Leeladhar Shrivas vs Bhushan Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5586 Chatt

                                       -1-

                                                                            NAFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                              MA(C) No.20 of 2020

   1. Leeladhar Shrivas Son of Late R.D. Shrivas Aged About 36 Years
   2. Smt. Leelawati Shrivas W/o Leeladhar Shrivas Aged About 29 Years
      Both are R/o Shivaji Nagar, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh.
                                                                 ---Appellant(s)
                                     Versus
   1. Bhushan Singh S/o Late Chandrama Singh Rajput Aged About 24 Years
      R/o Dadar Korba, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh.
   2. Narendra Kumar Dubey S/o M.L. Dubey Aged About 56 Years R/o E.W.S. /
      03, Shivaji Nagar, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh.
   3. National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, National
      Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Minu Complex Kosabadi, Korba,
      Chhattisgarh.
   4. Smt. Meena Singh W/o Late Chandrama Singh Rajput Aged About 49
      Years R/o Dadarkhurd Korba, Tahsil and District Korba Chhattisgarh.
                                                                 Respondent(s)

For Appellants : Shri Pawan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate. For Respondent No.2. : Shri Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Shri R.N. Pusty, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

07.09.2022

1. The counsel for the appellant, at the outset, makes an oral prayer for

making necessary amendment in the cause title so far as the status of the

appellant is concerned as appellant No.1 has been wrongly reflected as

"daughter of late R.D. Shrivas" whereas it ought to had been "son of R.D.

Shrivas".

2. On due consideration, the oral prayer stands allowed. Let necessary

amendment be carried out during the course of the day.

3. The appeal today has been taken up for hearing on IA No.1 which is an

application for condonation of delay filed by the respondent No.2, the

owner, in support of his Cross Objection/Cross Appeal. The delay is of

almost 1000 days which has been wrongly shown as delay of 177 days by

the Registry.

4. Another appeal arising out of the same accident involved in the present

appeal i.e. MAC No.49 of 2020 came up for hearing before this court on

10.08.2022. In the said appeal, this court has in identical set of facts

rejected application for condonation of dealy in filing of the Cross

Appeal/Cross Objection filed by the respondent No.2, the owner in the

instant case who is the respondent No.2 in the present appeal also.

5. Given the fact, that the circumstances being identical, the application for

condonation of delay in filing of the Cross Appeal filed by the respondent

No.2 in the instant case also therefore on similar grounds deserves to be

and is accordingly rejected.

6. With the consent of the parties, the appeal of the claimants for

enhancement also has been heard finally.

7. This is claimants appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act

seeking enhancement against the award dated 07.11.2019 passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba in Claim Case No.15/2016.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the

compensation quantified by the Tribunal is on the lower side. That, the

award of Rs.2,00,000/-quantified by the Tribunal is inappropriate and not

justified. It was also the contention of the claimants that the multiplier

applied by the Tribunal also is on the lower side and in terms of the recent

judgment of the Supreme Court the multiplier ought to be that of 15 rather

than 10 which has been applied by the Tribunal. In addition, it was also the

contention of the appellants that the amount towards the conventional

head also has been awarded on the lower side. The amount therefore

needs to be revisited and recalculated taking into consideration the recent

pronouncement of the Supreme Court under similar facts. The Supreme

Court in case of Rajender Singh and Others Vs. National Insurance Co.

Ltd. & Ors. 2020(7)SCC 257 has accepted the notional income of a minor

child at Rs.36000/- per annum and have also ordered for applying the

multiplier of 15 with deduction of 50 percent towards personal expenses.

9. This court therefore in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in case

of Rajender Singh (Supra) is inclined to allow the instant claimants appeal

to the aforesaid extent. Accordingly, taking into consideration the notional

income of the deceased at Rs.36000/- per annum and applying the

multiplier of 15 the income of the deceased comes to Rs.5,40,000/-. Of

which, if 50 percent is deducted towards personal expenses, the amount

would come to Rs.2,70,000/-. It is thus ordered that the claimants shall be

entitled for the compensation of Rs.2,70,000/- instead of Rs.1,50,000/-

which was quantified by the Tribunal. To the said amount, the claimants

would also be entitled for loss of consortium @ Rs.80,000/- i.e.

Rs.40,000/- each to the two claimants i.e. the father and mother of the

deceased child. In addition, the appellants would also be entitled for

compensation of Rs.30,000/- i.e. 15,000/- each towards loss of estate,

funeral and other incidental expenses, which would bring the total amount

of compensation payable to the claimants at Rs.3,80,000/-. It is ordered

accordingly.

10. The appeal of the claimants thus stands allowed and the claimants would

be entitled for an amount of Rs.3,80,000/- instead of Rs.2,00,000/- as

quantified by the Tribunal. The remaining part of the award shall remain

intact.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder