Ghanshyam Jaiswal And ORS v. Sajeevanram Magendra Anors

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH CO

RT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAsPUR (c.G.) M.A.

(C) No. ¥4o or2013 Sing!e Ewan APPELLANTS/ Ghanshyam son late Claimants Dilbar, aged about 52 years,

2. / Smt.

Rekha Devi Wife Ghanshyam Jaiswal, aged about 44 years, ,//3/.V Pankaj Kumar, aged about years, son of Ghanshyam Jaiswal /.

Ku.

Preeti, aged about years, 0N5 u daughter of Ghanshyam Jaiswal, ', unLg lmlw Sonu Jaiswal, aged about years, r'son of Ghanshyam Jaiswal 6.

Minor laxmi @ Priya Jaiswal, aged about years, daughter Ghanshyam Jaiswal, through father Ghanshyam Jaiswal, A11 are resident VillageJhalmala, Police Station-Balod, Revenue District-Balod, Civil District-Durg (C.G.)

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS/ :1.

"Sajeevanram Magendra son @en-aggiicants Dukhurarn Magendra, aged about 3O years, resident VillageBhaisbod, Tahsil 8a Felice StationBalod, Revenue District-Balod, Civil District-Durg (C.G.)

@ '/2 National / Insurance Limited, through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Supela, Bhilai, Police Station-Bhilai, Civil & Revenue District-Durg (C.G.) MEMG GF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988

HIGH COURT OF CHEATTISGARH Single Bench:

Hon'ble Mr.

Justice Sanjay K.

Agrawal '

MVA.

(C) No.

of 2013 APPELLANTS Ghanshyam & CLAIMANTS others.

versus RESPONDENTS Sajeevanram Magendra & Non~applicants another.

Miscellaneous appeal under Section Motor Vehicles Act,

Present:

Shri B.P.

Singh, counsel appellants.

Shri P.P.

Sahu, counsel No.

l.

Shri Qamrul Aziz, l'counsel No.

2.

JUDGEMENT

(01. 01 .2014) This olaimants'

appeal seeking enhancement Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, Distt.

Durg (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') claim No.

46/12 Vide award dated 2.4.2013.

As against 13,00,000/- claimed unfortunate parents, two brothers two sisters Priyanka Jaiswal, aged about years, filing claim petition under Section Motor Vehicles Act, (for short 'the Act') her death motor

accident on l2.03.20l2, sum 2,80,000/- claimants along with interest @ percent per annum from date application till its actual payment.

3.

Tribunal, on close scrutiny evidence led, held that accident had occurred due rash negligent driving of Motor cycle bearing registration No.C.G.07 A.D.

Ol38 its driver i.e No.

lSajeevanram Magendra;

Priyanka died on account injuries sustained by her said accident;

No.2/National Insurance Limited liable payment it could not establish violation policy conditions;

assessed aforementioned sum compensation.

4 .

Shri B. P .

Sing'n, learned counsel v appellants, while not disputing assessment w income assessed Tribunal, would submit:

has deducted l/3rd income towards her personal expenses whereas View judgment Supreme Court Sarla Verma (Smt.) & others V.

Delhi Transport Corporation and.

anotherl, l/5th should have been deducted her 1 2009 (6) scc 121

personal expenses.

He would further submit that the'

has further erred applying multiplier lO place thus has fallen error awarding low Rs.2,80,000/- only.

5.

Shri Qamrul Aziz, learned counsel appearing No.3/Insurance supported award impugned submitted, facts & circumstances just proper which does not call any interference.

6.

have heard learned counsel appearing parties perused material available on record including award impugned.

7.

assessed income 3,000/- per month & § 36,000/- per annum;

after deducting l/3rd it towards his personal expenses, assessed claimant's dependency at 24,000/- per annum;

applied multiplier lO sum f 2,40,000/- towards loss dependency .

further awa rded 40,000/- on other conventional heads, thus, sum 2,80,000/- claimants.

8.

Indisputably, unfortunate parents, two brothers two sisters Priyanka i.e.

six number, have filed this claim petition.

9n face, has committed an error law deducting l/3'd income towards her personal living expenses kg applying multiplier lO place Supreme Court Sax-la Verma (Smt.) (supra) has prescribed multiplier age group between 21-25 also prescribed deduction on account personal living expenses l/5th case, claimants are number.

Therefore, I propose re- ,;V compute applying multiplier place applied deducting only l/5th place l/3'd from income purpose determination claimants'

annual dependency.

lO.

After deducting l/5th it towards her personal living expenses, claimants'

annual dependency would be 28,800/- rounded off Rs.29,000/- taken annual dependency claimants.

By multiplying claimants'

annual dependency 29,000/- with multiplier l7, towards loss dependency would be 4,93,000/ -.

claimants are further

entitled 40,000/- Tribunal, thus claimants are entitled sum 5,33,000/e instead 2,80,000/ - Tribunal.

ll.

For foregoing reasons, appeal filed claimants enhancement partly allowed.

2,80,000/- enhanced 5,33,000/ -.

claimants are further entitled receive 2,53,000/- over above Enhanced Tribunal.

2,53,000/- shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from date filing claim petition till its actual payment.

Award modified above extent.

Rest conditions mentioned award shall remain intact.

2Nation'al Insurance l2.

Limited granted four months'

time deposit enhanced f 2,53,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from date filing claim petition before concerned Claims Tribunal.

Sd/- No order cost.

Sanjay K. Agrawal l3.

Judge