Sita Dinkar v. Sarvajeet Kumar
AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 69 of 2016
1. Sita Dinkar widow of Mahendra Kumar Dinkar, aged about 23 years,
2. Sudharam Dinkar son of late Chhabli Dinkar, aged about 55 years,
3. Smt. Sheela Dinkar wife of Sutha Ram Dinkar, aged about 50 years,
4. Roshan Kumar Dinkar son of Sudharam Dinkar, aged about 29 years, All are resident of village- Kachhar, Post- Aramsahi, Police StationMasturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). ---- Appellants/Claimants
Versus
1. Sarvajeet Kumar son of Surendra Singh, aged about 26 years, Occupation- Driver, resident of Sonbarsa (Khaira), Police StationMali, District- Aurangabad (Bihar), new address- through Vehicle Owner, Nawal Kishore Singh son of late Vinod Narayan Singh, Resident of Rajkishore Nagar, near Aasha Aata Chakki, Police Station- Sarkanda, Tahsil and District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Driver- Swaraj Majda Truck No. C.G.- 10/C/9550).
2. Nawal Kishore Singh son of late Vinod Narayan Singh, resident of Rajkishore Nagar, near Aasha Aata Chakki, Police Station- Sarkanda, Tahsil and District- Bilaspur (C.G.). (Owner- Swaraj Majda Truck No. C.G.- 10/C/9550)
3. Branch Manager, New India Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Branch Office- rama Trade Center, in front of Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Bilasur, Tahsil & District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Insurer- Swaraj Majda Truck No. C.G.- 10/C/9550). ---- Respondents For Appellants :Shri A. L. Singroul, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1 & 2.
:Shri Praveen K. Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondent No.3 :
:Shri Aanand Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Gautam Chourdiya, J Judgment On Board 12.03.
This appeal is filed by the claimants against the award dated 27.08.2015, passed by 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bilaspur, (C.G.), in Claim Case No.160/2014 awarding total compensation of Rs. 18,86,480/-along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of award till its reliazation, fastening liability on the nonapplicant No. 3.
02. As per claim petition, on 23.11.2013, deceased Mahendra Kumar Dinkar, aged about 36 years, earning Rs.18,000 to 20,000/- per month as Multipurpose Health Worker (govt. employee) died in the motor vehicle accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle(Swaraj Mazda) bearing registration No. CG 10-C/9550 by nonapplicant No.1-Sarvjeet Kumar. The offending vehicle is owned by nonapplicant No. 2 & insured with Non-applicant No. 3/The New India Insurance Company.
03. On claim petition being filed by the claimants/wife, parents & brother of the deceased- Mahendra Kumar Dinkar under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal considering the evidence led by both the parties passed an award as mentioned above. 04.
Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that at the time of accident, the deceased as per his salary slip (Ex. P/15), was earning Rs. 17359/- per month as Multipurpose Health Worker (govt. employee) but the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed his income as Rs. 15554/- (net salary) per month, therefore, it is prayed that it should be assessed as Rs. 17,359/-pm (Ex. P/15). He further submits that no amount towards future prospect was granted, looking to the age of deceased and job as permanent Govt. employee at the time of accident, 50 % future prospect should be added into the income of the deceased.
In support of above contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Smt. Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680.
05.
As submitted by the parties, no counter appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.
06.
Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 & 2/driver & owner submits that learned Tribunal rightly considered all aspects of the matter and has rightly awarded the compensation to the claimants, therefore, there is no need to interferer with the award. 07.
Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/Insurance company submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased as Rs. 15554/-pm as net salary and thereby after considering all the relevant aspects of the matters, rightly awarded compensation, which does not call for any interference in the instant appeal.
08. Heard learned counsel for the parties on appeal and perused the material available on record and the award impugned. 09.
As regards the income of the deceased is concerned, looking to the pay slip i.e. Ex. P/15 at the time of accident the deceased was earning Rs. 17,359/- per month, therefore, the deceased as Government permanent employee the salary of deceased as Rs. 17359/- per month(by not deducting the allowances) can safely be considered. It is not disputed by both the parties as per service book (Ex. P/13) of the deceased, the date of birth of deceased is 01.08.1979 and the accident occurred on 23.11.2013, therefore, looking to the aforesaid document the deceased was aged about 36 years at the time of accident and considering the age, the multiplier of 15 would be applicable. Further, considering the dependency, the nature of his job and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi, (supra), the claimants are held entitled for compensation in the following manner:
Sl.
No.
Heads Calculation (in rupees) 01.
Income of the deceased @ Rs.17,359 /- per Rs. 17,359 x12= Rs.
month 2,08,308/- per annum 02.
50% of (1) above to be added towards future prospects.
Rs.2,08,308+ Rs.
1,04,154= Rs. 3,12,462/- 03.
After 1/3rd deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased Rs.3,12,462 -1,04,154= Rs. 2,08,308/- 04.
Multiplier of 15 to be applied Rs. 31,24,620/-/- 05.
Towards funeral expences, loss of Estate, & loss of consortium Rs. 70,000/- 06.
Total compensation Rs. 31,94,620/- Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.18,86,480/-, after deducting the same from the above amount, the claimants are held entitled for additional compensation of Rs.13,08,140/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of award till its realization. 10.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the impugned award to the above extent. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.
Sd/- (Gautam Chourdiya) Judge amita