Smt. Bitti Devi @ Urmila Devi v. Prakash Kaushik
AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Miscellaneous Appeal (Civil) No. 1368 of 2018
1. Smt. Bitti Devi @ Urmila Devi, wife of late Anil Kumar Shukla, aged about 36 years
2. Kamlesh Shukla (minor), aged about 11 years, son of late Anil Kumar Shukla
3. Ku. Neha Shukla, (minor), aged about 07 years, daughter of late Anil Kumar Shukla
4. Satyam Shukla (minor), aged about 05 years, son of late Anil Kumar Shukla, (The appellants no. 2 to 4 are represented by their mother and next friend Smt. Bitti @ Urmila Devi)
5. Smt. Pushpa Shukla, aged about 65 years, wife of late Chandrika Prasad Shukla
6. Chandrika Prasad Shukla, aged about 78 years, son of late Baijnath Shukla, All are resident of Near Chouhan Provision Stores Shivnagar, Changorabhatha, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Appellants/Claimants
Versus
1. Prakash Kaushik, aged about 38 years, son of Ishanu Prasad Kaushik, resident of Near Bade Jhar, Shyam Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Driver of the offending vehicle Bolero bearing registration No. CG04/LB/4073)
2. Premier Vigilance and Security Pvt. Ltd. C/o. Vishnu Prasad Sahu, resident of Ward no. 67, House No. 567, Karan Nagar, Changorabhatha, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) (Owner wrongly mentioned as driver of the offending vehicle Bolero bearing registration No. CG-04/LB/4073)
3. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager/Divisional Office, Ravi Bhawan, Jaistambh Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer of the offending vehicle Bolero bearing registration No. CG-04/LB/4073) ---- Respondents For Appellants :
Shri C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondents 1 & 2 :
Shri Maneesh Sharma, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.3 :
Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya, J Judgment on Board 10.01.2019 1.
This is Claimants' appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur vide award dated 11.05.2018 passed in Claim Petition No.
237 of 2017.
2.
The Claimants, unfortunate wife, children and parents of deceased- Anil Kumar Shukla claimed compensation of Rs.57,00,000/- by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of deceased in the motor accident on 09.12.2016, according to the Claimants, deceased-Anil Kumar Shukla and his associates were going to deposit the box containing old notes in the I.C.M.C. Bank, Dholapur by travelling in a Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. CG-4/LB/4073 which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver-Prakash Kaushik/Respondent No.1 and as the said vehicle overturned, Anil Kumar Shukla died due to injuries sustained in the accident. 3.
The learned Tribunal, in the impugned award, has awarded a compensation of Rs.19,60,000/- in favour of the Appellants/Claimants with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is actually realized and the liability has been fastened upon the Respondents to pay compensation jointly and severally to the Claimants.
4.
Learned counsel for the Appellants/Claimants submits that the Tribunal has not properly considered the evidence adduced by the Claimants and has awarded low compensation, which deserves to be suitably enhanced. 5.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents supported the award impugned and submits that there is no illegality, therefore, there is no need to interfere with the award impugned.
6.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned award including the records of the Claims Tribunal. 7.
Ex.-P/15 and Ex.P/16, salary slips for the months of October and November, 2016 of the deceased, would show the gross salary upto Rs.10,780/- including all allowances, the Tribunal has taken the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- and by adding 40% towards future prospects, the income worked out to Rs.14,000/-. The Tribunal has taken the above income into consideration for the purpose of computation of compensation and after deducting 1/4th of it towards
personal expenses of deceased, the total income worked out to Rs.10,500/- per month and Rs.1,26,000/- per annum. Further, looking to the age of deceased i.e. 37 years, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15, therefore, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.18,90,000/- on account of loss of dependency. This apart, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Tribunal has further awarded Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads and thus has awarded Rs.19,60,000/- as total compensation, which, in my considered opinion, is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case and needs no interference.
8.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the Claimants/Appellants for enhancement of compensation is, therefore, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- (Gautam Chourdiya) Judge vatti