Smt. Durgawati Yadav vs. Kamlesh Kumar Patel

Facts

The appellants, legal heirs of the deceased Nilesh Yadav, filed an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur. The deceased, aged about 27 years, died in a road accident on December 24, 2021. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 18,65,520/-. The appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased's income at a lower rate and awarding lesser amounts under conventional heads. They argued that the deceased earned Rs. 15,000/- per month from Prabhat Graphics, as supported by an income certificate and the testimony of the owner. They also argued for a deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd, given the four claimants.

Held

The Court held that the Claims Tribunal erred in discarding the income certificate (Ex. P-9) and the testimony of the owner of Prabhat Graphics (AW-3) which indicated the deceased's monthly income was Rs. 15,000/-. While acknowledging that the deceased lacked formal certificates for computer and flex printing, the Court found sufficient evidence to establish his employment in a printing press. Consequently, the Court assessed the deceased's monthly income at Rs. 12,000/-. The Court also agreed with the appellants that the deduction for personal and living expenses should be 1/4th instead of 1/3rd, and that the compensation under other conventional heads was insufficient. Applying the principles from Supreme Court judgments in National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors, and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors, the Court recalculated the compensation. The total compensation was enhanced from Rs. 18,65,520/- to Rs. 27,79,400/-, granting an additional amount of Rs. 9,13,880/- with interest at 6% per annum. The rest of the award conditions remained intact.

Key Issues

1. Whether the monthly income of the deceased Nilesh Yadav was correctly assessed by the Claims Tribunal at Rs. 8,800/-, or if it should be enhanced based on the evidence presented by the appellants? 2. Whether the deduction for personal and living expenses should be 1/3rd or 1/4th, considering the number of claimants? 3. Whether the compensation awarded under other conventional heads is just and proper, or if it requires enhancement? Contentions of the Appellants: The appellants argued that the Claims Tribunal erred by discarding the income certificate (Ex. P-9) and the testimony of the owner of Prabhat Graphics (AW-3), who stated the deceased earned Rs. 15,000/- per month. They asserted that the Tribunal should have considered this higher income. Furthermore, they contended that the deduction of 1/3rd for personal and living expenses was incorrect, as it should have been 1/4th due to the presence of four claimants. They also argued for enhancement of compensation under other conventional heads. Contentions of the Revenue/State (Respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company): The respondent No. 3/insurance company argued that the Claims Tribunal rightly awarded the compensation amount after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, and therefore, the award is just and proper and requires no interference.