IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA, J.
Miscellaneous Appeal No.1036 of 2017
(22.10.2024)
Arti Devi & Ors. ... Appellants
vs.
Mukund Choudhary & Ors. ... Respondents
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Compensation for the death caused by the accident with a bus – The term compensation is a comprehensive term which includes a claim for even if the judgment and award has been accepted by the claimant, appeal for enhancement of the damages – The claimant for award of compensation under Section 166 of the Act, is entitled for just compensation which has to be equitable and fair – The loss of life and limb can never be compensated in an equal measure but the Act is a social piece of legislation with object to facilitate the claimants to get redress the loss of the member of the family, compensate the loss in some measure and the claimant to a reasonable extent – Here, the claimants claimed that the deceased worked as Raj Mistry earning Rs. 8000/- per month but no documentary evidence given in support of it and in absence of it, some amount of guess work is required to be done – The learned Tribunal has rightly determined the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month and it requires no interference – Calculating the total loss of dependency on account of the deceased income is calculated to the tune of Rs. 10,20,600 – Deduction towards personal and living expenses will be 1/4th as the deceased has left behind four dependants – Conventional damages of the claimants also is required to be enhanced on the basis of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and appellants/claimants stand entitled for a total compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,50,500/- with 8% simple interest per annum – Judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal stands modified to that extent. (Paras 27 to 39)
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680; MCD Vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association, (2011) 14 SCC 481; Union of India Vs. N. Murugesan, (2022) 2 SCC 25 – Referred.
Smt. Meena Pawaia Vs. Ashraf Ali, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1083; Sarla Verma (Smt.) Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Somwati, 2020 (5) BLJ 533 (SC) : (2020) 9 SCC 644; Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130; United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780; Janabai Vs. M/S I.C.I.C.I. Lambord Insurance Company Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 512; Rojaline Nayak Vs. Ajit Sahoo, 2024 (5) BLJ 126 (SC) : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1901 – Relied.
Sunil Dutta Mishra, J.—
Re :- I.A. No.01 of 2024 (Limitation Petition)
This Interlocutory Application No.01 of 2024 has been filed for condonation of delay of 7 months and 4 days occurred in filing the instant miscellaneous appeal by the appellants.
2. This application is supported with the affidavit.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has made objection to this application stating that there is inordinate delay.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the averments made in the application, and in the interest of justice, the I.A. No.01 of 2024 is allowed.
5. The delay in filing the instant Miscellaneous Appeal is condoned.
Re :- Miscellaneous Appeal No.1036 of 2017
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.
7. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) on behalf of appellants for enhancing the compensation amount awarded to the appellants/claimants by the learned District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bhagalpur (hereinafter referred to as “learned Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 62 of 2014 vide Judgment dated 13.12.2016 and award signed on 25.01.2017.
8. The learned Tribunal held that the appellants are entitled to receive Rs.6,24,000/- as compensation and accordingly the New India Assurance Company Ltd has been directed to make payment of the compensation amount as per the order forthwith, along with 8% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till its realization of amount. The amount of Rs.50,000 paid by the Insurance Company as adinterim compensation shall be deducted from the principal amount as on the date of its payment and interest would be recalculated on the balance amount of the principal sum from such date.
9. The details of the calculation of compensation amount made by the learned Tribunal are as under:—
| S.No | Heads | Calculation | Net Amount |
| 1. | Monthly Income |
| Rs.4,500/- |
| 2. | Annual Income | Rs.4,500/- x 12 | Rs.54,000/- |
| 3. | Deceased aged about 25 years Multiplier of 17 is applicable | 17 x Rs.54,000 | Rs.9,18,000/- |
| 4. | 1/3rd deduction towards personal and living expenses | 1/3rd x Rs.9,18,000/- | Rs.6,12,000/- |
| 5. | Loss of estate |
| Rs.5,000/- |
| 6. | Loss of Consortium |
| Rs.5,000/- |
| 7. | Funeral Expenses |
| Rs.2,000/- |
| 8. | Total compensation |
| Rs.6,24,000/- |
10. The brief facts of this case are that Mukesh Kumar on 01.01.2014 at about 19:45 hours, after finishing his work while returning towards his house near pipal tree of Mushari tola a Bus bearing registration No. BR-11E-7227 coming form the LIC Office was driven rashly and negligently manner dashed him due to which he sustained fatal injury and succumbed to injuries and died at Mayaganj Hospital. The police registered F.I.R. vide Kotwali (Barari) P.S. Case No. 02 of 2014 on the basis of fardbeyan of Anil paswan against the driver of the offending Bus under Section 279 & 304 A of IPC. Further, postmortem of dead was held along with other legal formalities and after investigation police submitted charge sheet under Section 279 & 304 A of IPC against driver (Mukund Chaudhary) of the offending Bus.
11. Claimant no.1 (wife of deceased), claimant no. 2 (mother of deceased), Claimant Nos.3 and 4 are minor children of the deceased have filed a claim case bearing Claim Case No. 62 of 2014 before the learned Tribunal claiming that the offending vehicle was driven rashly and negligently by the driver of offending Bus, which dashed the deceased causing instant death to him. O.P. No.1 is the Driver, O.P. No.2 is owner and O.P. No. 3 is the Insurance Company of the offending Bus respectively who are respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively herein.
12. It is further claimed that the deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of occurrence, working as a head Raj Mistri and use to earn Rs.8,000/- per month by which he was maintaining
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi
MCD vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association
Union of India vs. N. Murugesan
Sarla Verma (Smt.) vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Somwati
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram
United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur
Appellate courts possess the authority to enhance compensation in motor accident claims to ensure just and fair awards, even in the absence of cross-appeals by claimants, by exercising powers to re-a....
Death in motor accident – Future prospects are integral component of just compensation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.