Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Parth Prateem Sahu, J.
CHANDRAKALI DHRUV — Appellant
Vs.
VIJAY KUMAR NISHAD AND OTHERS — Respondent
Mac No. 63 of 2013
Decided on : 12-04-2019
Mr. Prakash Kumar Mishra, Advocate, for the Appellant;
Mr. Dev Ashish Biswas, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate, for the Respondent
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Dependency of Claimants – Documentary Evidence – Accident – Validity and Propriety – Applicants submitted reply to claim application and denied all adverse pleadings made against them – Non-applicant reply to claim application pleaded that on date of accident deceased Sunderlal Dhruv was driving offending vehicle therefore met with an accident due to his own negligence – Hero Honda Street motorcycle bearing registration time of accident, non-applicant was driving offending vehicle and Sunderlal Dhruv was travelling as a pillion rider – Offending vehicle met with an accident by dashing a tree on road side accident, Sunderlal Dhruv sustained grievous injuries on his head waist and other parts of body and succumbed to injuries on spot – Held, Learned Claims Tribunal has deducted amount of monthly income towards personal expenses of deceased is also not correct looking to the number of dependents amount towards personal expenses to be deducted from income of deceased has been decided by Honble Supreme Court in matter of wherein Honble Supreme Court has provided guideline for deduction of personal expenses case at hand where dependents are eight in number amount should be deducted from income of deceased towards his personal expenses deceased on the date of accident to be annum. By adding of aforesaid income towards future prospects income of deceased comes to deducting 1/5 th towards his personal expenses from the income of deceased annual dependency of claimants comes – Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Parth Prateem Sahu, J. - By this instant appeal, appellants/claimants assailed the legality, validity and propriety of impugned award dated 06.09.2012 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara, C.G. (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.27/2010, whereby learned Claims Tribunal partly allowed claim application filed by appellants/claimants and awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,35,000/- in a death case.
2. Brief facts for disposal of this appeal, are that, on 12.12.2008 deceased Sunderlal Dhruv along with Vijay Kumar was travelling on a Hero Honda Street motorcycle bearing registration No. CG04/ZE/8310 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle'). At the time of accident, non-applicant No.1 was driving offending vehicle and Sunderlal Dhruv was travelling as a pillion rider. Offending vehicle met with an accident by dashing a tree on road side. In the aforementioned accident, Sunderlal Dhruv sustained grievous injuries on his head, waist and other parts of body and succumbed to injuries on spot.
3. On account of death of Sunderlal Dhruv, appellants/claimants filed a claim application under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V. Act') before the competent Claims Tribunal claiming Rs. 8,00,000/- as compensation on the grounds mentioned therein.
4. Non-applicants No.1 and 2 submitted reply to claim application and denied all adverse pleadings made against them. Non-applicant No.2 in his reply to claim application pleaded that on the date of accident, deceased Sunderlal Dhruv was driving the offending vehicle, therefore, he met with an accident due to his own negligence.
5. Non-applicant No.3 also submitted, reply to claim application and stated that he has sold his motorcycle to M/s Agrawal Motors on 17.11.2006 i.e. non-applicant No.4 i.e. Umesh Kumar Agrawal (M/s Agrawal Motors Balodabazar) and also signed all the relevant documents including transfer paper and it is non-applicant No.4 who negligently could not process the papers, therefore, non-applicant No.3 could not be held liable to pay any amount of compensation.
6. Non-applicant No.4 pleaded in his reply that offending vehicle was received by it under exchange and sold the same to non-applicant No.2 on 25.06.2008 and also handed over all the relevant documents to him.
7. Non-applicant No.2 even has given assurance that he will process the required documents of transfer of ownership with the competent authority and also executed documents by mentioning therein that from the date of purchase, all liability with respect to offending vehicle will be of his.
8. Learned Claims Tribunal while appreciating the pleadings and evidence available on record held that deceased Sunderlal Dhruv was travelling on offending vehicle as pillion rider, it is non-applicant No.1, who was driving offending vehicle at the time of accident and accident took place due to his rash and negligent driving.
9. Learned Claims Tribunal while calculating the amount of compensation, awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,35,000/- by holding the income of deceased on notional basis as Rs. 15,000/- per annum and fastened the liability upon all the non-applicants to satisfy the award. Non-applicants therein have not challenged the impugned award. The appeal has been preferred by claimants for enhancement of award.
10. Learned counsel appearing for appellants/claimants argued that learned Claims Tribunal committed an error in assessing the income of deceased to Rs. 15,000/- per annum only, whereas on the date of accident, deceased was working as Mason and earning Rs. 150/- per day.
11. He further argued that learned Claims Tribunal also committed an error in not awarding any amount towards future prospects and deducting 1/3 rd towards personal expenses whereas number of claimants are eight in number.
12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 supported the impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal.
13.
