Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 689 (CHH)

TRIVENI SAHU v. MUKESH KUMAR JAHIRE

2017-11-06

P.SAM KOSHY

body2017
JUDGMENT : P. Sam Koshy, J.—The present is a claimants-appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the award dated 17.9.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, in Claim Case No. 40/2010. 2. Vide the impugned award, the learned Tribunal, in a death case, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,92,000/- to the claimants after assessing contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the percentage of contributory negligence assessed was 50%. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the award submits that firstly the finding of the learned Tribunal to the extent of assessing the contributory negligence against the deceased is erroneous and bad in law and the same deserves to be set aside. He submits that there is no evidence on record with which the learned Tribunal could have reached to such conclusion. He further submits that a plain reading of the finding of the Tribunal would by itself reveal that it is only an assumption and presumption which has been drawn by the learned Tribunal without any strong basis. He next submits that it is a case where the deceased was travelling on a bicycle and was hit by a Truck and it cannot be imagined that the deceased could have contributed for the accident to have occurred. He thus prayed for a suitable modification of the award. 4. So far as the compensation is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the compensation awarded is on the lower side as the income assessed is not correct inasmuch as the income ought to had been Rs. 7,815/- per month instead of Rs. 7,725/- as assessed by the learned Tribunal. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the income towards the Group Insurance Scheme also would be part of the monthly income, which has not been considered by the Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is also not proper and that the Tribunal has also not considered the income under the future prospects while computing the compensation. Likewise, considering the total number of dependants/claimants, the deduction ought to had been ?th instead of ?rd as has been assessed by the Tribunal. 6. Likewise, considering the total number of dependants/claimants, the deduction ought to had been ?th instead of ?rd as has been assessed by the Tribunal. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3-insurance company however opposing the appeal submits that the finding of the learned Tribunal is based on the evidence which have come on record and the Tribunal has also given reasons for attributing the contributory negligence and thus prayed for the rejection of the appeal. 7. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record, it is found that the finding of contributory negligence is only on assumption and presumption without there being any strong basis and the same is thus not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. 8. So far as the income is concerned, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants does have force and therefore it is ordered that the income of the deceased has to be accepted as Rs. 7,815/- instead of Rs. 7,725/- as assessed by the learned Tribunal. 9. Accordingly, assessing the monthly income at Rs. 7,815/- if we add 30% i.e. Rs. 2,345/- towards the future prospects, the amount would come to Rs. 10,160/- a month and Rs. 1,21,920/- yearly. If ?th of Rs. 1,21,920/- (that comes to Rs. 24,384/-) is deducted towards the personal and living expenses, the net figure would become Rs. 97,536/-. If the said amount of Rs. 97,536/- is multiplied applying the multiplier of 13, considering the age of the deceased, the amount which comes to Rs. 12,67,968/- is the loss of dependency. Further, keeping in view the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & others SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017 (reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 ) this Court quantifies the compensation under the conventional heads at Rs. 70,000/-. Thus, the total claim amount payable to the claimants would be Rs. 13,37,968/- which for convenience is rounded off at Rs. 13,38,000/-. 10. It is accordingly ordered that the claimants shall be entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 13,38,000/- instead of Rs. 3,92,100/- which was quantified by the learned Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall also carry interest at the same rate as has been imposed by the learned Tribunal. 13,37,968/- which for convenience is rounded off at Rs. 13,38,000/-. 10. It is accordingly ordered that the claimants shall be entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 13,38,000/- instead of Rs. 3,92,100/- which was quantified by the learned Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall also carry interest at the same rate as has been imposed by the learned Tribunal. It is made clear that the claimants shall be entitled for the entire compensation as the finding of contributory negligence stands set aside/quashed. 11. The appeal stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.