United India Insurance Company ... vs Smt. Sangeeta Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 612 Chatt

                                  1

                                                                NAFR
          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
               Judgment reserved on : 11.11.2022
               Judgment delivered on : 31/01/2023
                      MAC No. 1444 of 2016
    United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Divisional
     Manager, Divisional Office-Tara Complex, G.E.Road, Power
     House Bhilai, Tah. and Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh
                                                         ---- Appellant
                                Versus
  1. Smt. Sangeeta Singh Wd/o Late Ajay Kumar Singh, Aged About
     26 Years
  2. Ajit Singh S/o Shri Surendra Singh, Aged About 24 Years
  3. Saroj Singh D/o Shri Surendra Singh, Aged About 20 Years
  4. Lav Singh S/o Shri Surendra Singh, Aged About 19 Years
  5. Smt. Chinta Devi W/o Shri Surendra Singh, Aged About 60
     Years
  6. Shri Surendra Singh S/o Prabhansh Singh, Aged About 65 Years
     Respondents No. 1 to 6 all are R/o H.S.C.L. Colony, Ruabandha,

Qr. No. 125D, P.S. Sector-06, Kotwali, Bhilai Nagar, Tah. And Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh

7. Vinod Singh S/o Ravindra Singh, Aged About 24 Years R/o Zone-2, Balaji Nagar, Khursipar, Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh-(Driver Of Trailor No. C.G.07, C-6740)

8. Dalvir Singh S/o Late Swarn Singh, R/o Arya Nagar Kohka, Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh, Through- Power Of Attorney- Neeraj Kumar, S/o Shri C.Sahu, R/o L.I.G.-183 Housing Board Colony, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Trailor No. C.G.07, C-6740)

---- Respondents

For Appellant : Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 6 : Shri Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate.

For Respondents No.7 & 8    :         None though served.


                    Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
                               CAV Judgment

01. The appellant/insurer has filed this appeal under Section 173 of

the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 23.6.2016 passed by

the VI Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case

No.139/2014 awarding total compensation of Rs.45,83,932/- to the

claimants with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition till

realization, fastening liability jointly and severally on the

appellant/insurer with respondent No.7/driver & respondent

No.8/owner.

02. As per claim petition, on 4.5.2014 at around 12.05 am while Ajay

Kumar Singh with his relative Manoj Singh by riding motorcycle Pulsar

bearing No. CG 07 AH 5096 was going from Charouda towards his

house at Ruabandha, respondent No.7 Vinod Singh by driving Trailor

bearing No. CG 07 C 6740 (in short "offending vehicle") in a rash and

negligent manner, dashed his motorcycle near service road NH-06

Khursipar. As a result of it, Ajay Kumar Singh and Manoj Singh fell

down and suffered grievous injuries, however, the driver of the trailor

fled from the spot. Immediately thereafter Ajay Kumar Singh was taken

to Govt. Hospital, Durg where the doctor declared him dead. At the

time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.8

Dalvir Singh and insured with the appellant United India Insurance Co.

Ltd.

03. On claim petition being filed by the claimants who are widow,

younger brothers and parents of the deceased under Section 166 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal considering the evidence led by

both the parties partly allowed the claim petition and awarded

compensation in favour of the claimants as mentioned above.

04. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits

that the impugned award is per se bad in law and as such, not

sustainable. Respondents No.2, 3 & 4 brothers of the deceased were

not dependent upon the deceased and also not his legal

representatives, therefore, they are not entitled for any compensation

but the Tribunal overlooked this aspect of the matter and wrongly

deducted 1/4th in place of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses

of the deceased. Further, it's a case of contributory negligence on the

part of the deceased who was riding the motorcycle rashly and

negligently. The amount awarded towards conventional heads is also

on the higher side. Therefore, the impugned award may be either set

aside or reduced to the permissible extent.

05. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for

respondents/claimants supporting the impugned award submitted that

the Tribunal considering all the relevant aspects of the matter has

rightly passed the award in favour of the claimants which warrants no

interference by this Court.

06. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

07. So far as deduction towards personal and living expenses is

concerned, the claimants No. 2, 3 & 4 are younger brothers of the

deceased, who were aged about 24, 20 and 17 years respectively at

the time of filing claim petition and they cannot be said to be

dependents upon the deceased. The other claimants are widow and

parents of the deceased. Thus, keeping in view the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680, there has to be

1/3rd deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased

for the purpose of assessing compensation.

08. As regards contributory negligence, there is no evidence, oral or

documentary, adduced by the insurance company to prove contributory

negligence on the part of the deceased in causing the accident.

Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that contributory negligence on

the part of the deceased has not been proved in this case.

09. So far as the argument of the appellant regarding higher award

under the other conventional heads is concerned, considering the age

of the deceased and that of the claimants, the value of rupee at the

relevant time and other relevant circumstances, the amount awarded

under the conventional heads cannot be said to be excessive or

unreasonable.

10. Thus, after 1/3rd deduction towards personal and living

expenses of the deceased from the annual income of the deceased as

assessed by the Tribunal after adding 50% to it towards future

prospects i.e. 3,29,328, the annual loss of dependency comes to

Rs.2,19,552/-. After applying multiplier of 17, the total loss of

dependency comes to Rs.37,32,384/-. After adding the total amount

awarded of Rs.3,85,000/- by the Tribunal towards conventional heads,

the total compensation is assessed at Rs.41,17,384/-.

11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The

appellant/insurance company is held liable jointly and severally with

respondents No. 7 & 8 to pay a total compensation of Rs.41,17,384/- to

the claimants with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of

claim petition till realization. Rest of the terms and conditions in the

impugned award regarding apportionment of the awarded amount shall

remain intact. The impugned award stands modified to the above

extent only.

sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge

Khan