AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Prasanna Sharma, J
The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 30-6-2015 passed by the 5th
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) in Claim Case No. 53 of 2013, wherein the said Tribunal awarded compensation of
Rs.8,44,000- on account of death of one Prakash Yadav in a motor accident occurred on 9- 1-2013.
The facts, in brief, are that on 9-1-2013 deceased Prakash Yadav along with his friend Raj Kumar Sahu and Manoj Soni was going to village
Khorha in a car bearing registration No. CG-04 KP 7111 and it was driven by respondent No.4 Manoj Soni. Due to rash and negligent driving of said
driver the vehicle dashed electric pole near village Kumhari due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries on the
spot. After recording the evidence and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.35,000/- in favour of respondent No.1 and
awarded rest of the amount in favour of respondents No. 2 and 3.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the respondent No.2 Ku. Jyoti Yadav and respondent No.3 Ku. Roshni Yadav were not
dependants on the deceased, therefore, they are not entitled for compensation as per law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of Amrit
Bhanu Shali vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2012 (11) SCC 738.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 would submit that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal is based on proper
appreciation of the evidence which does not call for any interference by this court.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record including the impugned award passed by the Tribunal.
In the present case, it is established on the basis of evidence of Deepak Kumar Yadav (AW/1) that respondents No.2 and 3 being unmarried sisters
were dependants on the deceased and no one rebutted the same before the Tribunal, therefore, it cannot be said that both the respondents No. 2 and 3
were not dependants on the deceased. Considering the facts and the evidence available on record, this court is of the opinion that the case law cited
by learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable from the facts of the present case.
Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the award amount on account of future prospects is against settled principles of law.
The Tribunal awarded 50% for future prospects as the age of the deceased at the time of incident was 22 years and the same is based on the
pronouncement by Hon'ble Apex Court in the mater of Santoshi Devi vs. National Insurance Company Ltd, reported in AIR 2012 SC 2185. The
Tribunal has deducted 50% as personal expenses of the deceased as he was bachelor which is also based on settled principles of law. The tribunal
assessed Rs.4,500/- per month as monthly income of the deceased while the minimum wages prevailing in the year 2013 was Rs.200/- per day which
comes to Rs.6000/- per month and 72,000/- per annum., therefore, what is assessed by the Tribunal cannot be termed on higher side, but it is less than
minimum wages per day prevailing at that time.
Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the amount on convention head is Rs.1,15,000/- which is against the principles of law
laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157.
In view of this Court, the amount of monthly income is assessed on lower side and if it would have been assessed as per minimum wages, the total
amount of compensation awarded must have been increased to what is awarded.
On over-all assessment of the entire record, this court is of the opinion that the awarded sum is not liable to be reduced while invoking jurisdiction
of the appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal sans merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.