Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 626 (CHH)

Hemlata Turkane v. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu

2019-04-30

GAUTAM CHOURDIYA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Gautam Chourdiya, J. This appeal is by the Claimants against the award dated 24.06.2017 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 698 of 2015 awarding total compensation of Rs.43,69,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till realization, fastening liability on non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company. 2. As per claim petition, on 06.07.2015 deceased- Jagdev Prasad, 55 years, earning Rs.62,274/- per month as Deputy Director Horticulture, died in the motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle Mini-Bus bearing registration No. CG-04/E/1784 by non-applicant No.1, owned by non-applicant No.2 and insured with non-applicant No.3. 3. On claim petition being filed by the Claimants, unfortunate widow and children of deceased-Jagdev Prasad Turkane, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal considering the evidence led by both the parties passed an award as mentioned above. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellants/Claimants submits that though he has raised various grounds in the memo of appeal, however, he is not pressing all those grounds and is assailing the award on the ground of non-grant of future prospects. In support thereof, reliance has been place on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No.3/Insurance Company supports the impugned award and submits that the Tribunal considering all the relevant aspects of the matter has rightly awarded compensation which needs no interference by this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is admitted that the deceased was aged about 55 years and he was a salary paid employee as Deputy Director in the office of the Deputy Director Horticulture Jagdalpur, District Bastar, therefore, looking to the nature of his job, the Claimants are entitled to 15% towards future prospect in view of decision in matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) and the decisions in the matter of Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , thus, the Claimants/Appellants are held entitled for compensation in the following manner: Sl. No. Heads Calculation (In rupees) 1. Income of the deceased (as considered by the Tribunal) Rs.7,06,500/- per annum 2. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , thus, the Claimants/Appellants are held entitled for compensation in the following manner: Sl. No. Heads Calculation (In rupees) 1. Income of the deceased (as considered by the Tribunal) Rs.7,06,500/- per annum 2. 15% towards future prospects added to annual income (Rs.7,06,500/- + Rs.1,05,975/-) Rs.8,12,475/- 3. 1/3rd deduction towards personal and living expenses of Deceased (Rs.8,12,475/- Rs.2,70,825/-) Rs.5,41,650/- 4. Multiplier of 9 to be applied Rs.5,41,650/- x 9 = Rs.48,74,850/- 5. Loss of love and affection Rs.20,000/- (as awarded by the Tribunal) 6. Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/- (as awarded by the Tribunal) 7. Funeral expenses Rs.10,000/- (as awarded by the Tribunal) Total Compensation Rs.50,04,850/- 8. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.43,69,000/-, after deducting the same from the above amount, the Claimants/Appellants are held entitled for additional compensation of Rs.6,35,850/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the impugned award to the above extent. 10. No order as to costs.