Smt. Anita Sinha v. Nandkeshwar Singh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 1719 of 2018

1. Smt. Anita Sinha, Wd/o Late Satish Kumar Sinha, A/a 49 years,

2. Shivangi Sinha, D/o Late Satish Kumar Sinha, A/a 23 years,

3. Siddharth Sinha, S/o Late Satish Kumar Sinha, A/a 19 years, All R/o Near Jagannath Temple, Baikunthpur, Raigarh, DistrictRaigarh (C.G.). ---- Appellants/Claimants

Versus

1. Nandkeshwar Singh, S/o Chandruram Rautiya, A/a 41 years, occupation- Driver, R/o Village Dokda Post, Dokda Police Station, Kansabel, District- Jashpur (C.G.).........Non-applicant No. 1/Driver of Vehicle No. C.G.13/UJ/3753

2. Smt. Shobhna R Shah, W/o Shri Rasik Lal Shah, A/a 41 years, R/o M-2/110, Gokul Tower, Dhimarapur Road, Chaitanya Nagar Raigarh, Tahsil & District- Raigarh (C.G.)....... Non-applicant No. 2/owner of Vehicle No. C.G. 13/UJ/3753

3. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited, Near Kevada Badi Bus Stand, Beside of Main Branch of State Bank, Tahsil & District- Raigarh (C.G.)......... Non-applicant No. 3/Insurer of Vehicle No. C.G. 13/UJ/3753 ---- Respondents For Appellants :

Shri Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate.

For Respondent No.3 :

Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Gautam Chourdiya, J Judgment On Board 05.02.2019 This appeal is by the claimants against the award dated 25.07.2018, passed by Second Additional Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Raigarh in M.A.C.T. No.101/2017 awarding total compensation of 22,02,860/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of application till realization, fastening liability on the nonapplicants jointly and severely.

02. As per claim petition, on 26.04.2017, deceased Satish Kumar Sinha was returning home at Raigarh from Gharghoda and then near Shyam Petrol Pump, the vehicle No. C.G.13/UJ/3753 was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 and hit the deceased, as a result thereof, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and was admitted to Fortis O.P. Jindal Hospital and then after discharging he was transferred to Government Hospital and where deceased succumbed to those injuries.

03. On claim petition being filed by the claimants 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 the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased ignoring the income tax returns vide Ex. A-11 submitted by the claimants after the death of the deceased, therefore, income of the deceased ought to have been considered according to the income tax return (Ex. P/11). He also submits that no future prospect has been awarded to the claimants.

05.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 / insurance company, while supporting the impugned award, submits that document Ex. P/11 is only the acknowledgment and the same has been filed after the death of the deceased and only the said document is used for the purpose of computation of the income of the deceased and not the income tax returns and, therefore, the learned Tribunal, on the basis of documents Ex. A/12 and A/13, has rightly considered the income of the deceased and thereby after considering all the relevant aspects of the matters has rightly awarded compensation, which does not call for any interference in the instant appeal.

06. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record.

07.

It is undisputed fact that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 51 years of age, therefore, multiplier & deduction towards personal expenses, as applied by the Tribunal, needs no interference. Learned Tribunal, after considering the income tax return submitted by the claimants, has considered the income of the deceases as Rs. 22,500/- per month. Further, document Ex. P/11 is only the acknowledgment and the same has been used for computation of the income of the deceased and not the documents regarding income tax return. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve on the document Ex. P/11 to P/14 therefore, in these circumstances the income can be considered as Rs. 25,000/- per month.

Further, in the instant case, future prospect has not been given, therefore, looking to the age of the deceased as 51 years, and working as self employed person 10 % future prospect would be added to the income of the deceased. Further, considering the age of the deceased, 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.25,000/- per month.

Rs.25,000 x 12= 3,00,000/- per annum 02.

10% of (1) above to be added towards future prospects.

Rs.3,30,000/- 03.

After 1/3rd deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased Rs.2,20000/- 04.

Multiplier of 11 to be applied Rs2,20,000 x 11 =24,20,000/- 05.

Towards loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses Rs.1,00,000/- (as awarded by the Tribunal)

06.

Towards medical bills Rs. 72,860/- Total compensation Rs.25,92,860/- Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.22,02,860/-, after deducting the same from the above amount, the claimants are held entitled for additional compensation of Rs.3,90,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of application till realization. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 08.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the impugned award to the above extent.

Sd/- (Gautam Chourdiya) Judge amita