Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.04.09 10:24:26 +0530 2025:CGHC:16177 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 45 of 2019 1. Smt. Kali Bai W/o Late Annat Kurre, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Silli, Thana And Tahsil Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.). 2. Ku. Varsha D/o Late Annat Kurre, Aged About 15 Years Minor Through His Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Kali Bai, R/o Village Silli, Thana And Tahsil Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.). 3. Ku. Manisha D/o Late Annat Kurre, Aged About 13 Years Minor Through His Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Kali Bai, R/o Village Silli, Thana And Tahsil Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.). 4. Ku. Punam D/o Late Annat Kurre Aged About 9 Years
Legal Reasoning
Minor Through His Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Kali Bai, R/o Village Silli, Thana And Tahsil Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.). 5. Abhay S/o Annat Kurre Aged About 5 Years Minor Through His Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Kali Bai, R/o Village Silli, Thana And Tahsil Mungeli, District-Mungeli (C.G.). 6. Arman S/o Late Annat Kurre Aged About 2 Years Minor Through His Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Kali Bai, R/o Village Silli, Thana And Tahsil Mungeli, District-Mungeli (C.G.). 7. Chaitram S/o Kejha Kurre, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village Silli, Thana And Tahsil Mungeli, District-Mungeli (C.G.). 2 8. Mongara Bai W/o Chitram Kurre, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Village Silli, Thana And Tahsil Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.).(Claimants) ... Appellants versus 1. Vijay Kumar S/o Parsadi Yadav, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Post Khaparikala Police Chowki Chilfi Thana Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 2. Shankar Lal S/o Santram Kewat Parsadi Yadav Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Post Khaparikala Police Chowki Chilfi Thana Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. (Owner) 3. I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Compny Limited Branch Office Commercial Bhawan Devendra Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Comp.) ... Respondents For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate on For other Respondents : None. behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board (07.04.2025) 1. This appeal arises out of the impugned award dated 10.01.2018 passed by the Additional Member of Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District-Mungeli (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 19/2017 awarding a compensation of Rs. 10,37,680/-with interest @ 7.5% per annum, in favour of the appellants/claimants for their irreparable loss. 3 2. The averment in the claim petition, in brief, is that on 25.09.2016 at about 5.00 pm, when Anant Kurre (now deceased) along with his brother Sanat Kurre (pillion rider) near Village Silli, Ravindra Gov. School, was starting his motorcycle, respondent No. 1 was driving the offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG-28-B-5514 in a rash and negligently manner coming from wrong side and dashed in the motorcycle of Anant Kurre, due to which Anant Kurre (deceased) suffered grievous injuries and died while undergoing treatment at Apollo Hospital Bilaspur. After that, a report was lodged based on the above stated offence. It is stated that on the date of the incident, the age of the deceased was 32 years who was working as a tractor driver and also involved in agricultural work and was earning Rs. 18,000/- per month from his work. Due to the casual death of the husband, father and son of the appellants/claimants, there is an irreparable loss to the appellants. Therefore, the appellants preferred an application to claim a total compensation of Rs. 52,00,000/- for their irreparable loss. 3. The learned Claims Tribunal based on the pleadings of the parties, framed issues and, after appreciation of evidence and material available on record, the income of the deceased was taken as Rs.4500/- per month in absence of appropriate proof. Further, the age of the deceased was considered as 32 years at the time of the accident and applied 40% future prospects to the income of the deceased. Learned Tribunal found that claimants are wife and children and mother, so deduction towards personal and caring expenses would be 1/5, and after applying a multiplier of 16, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 9,67,680/- and Rs.70,000/- has been awarding on other heads. Thus, total compensation of Rs. 10,37,680/- 4 with interest @ 7.5% per annum, in favour of the appellants/claimants. 4. While passing the impugned award, as the Tribunal has found that there was a breach of insurance conditions, therefore, the Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company from its liability and fastened the liability upon Respondents No. 1 & 2 i.e., driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claimants have pleaded the income of the deceased as Rs.18,000/- per month but the learned Claims Tribunal has only assessed notional income as Rs. 4500/- per month which is on the lower side. Learned counsel for appellants also submits that the Tribunal has awarded lesser compensation under other heads which also needs to be enhanced suitably. Therefore, this appeal may be allowed. He also prays for pay and recover orders. 6. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 3 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 9. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.10,37,680/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and 5 circumstances of the case. 10. As regards income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.18,000/- per month from the work of tractor driving and agriculture but no appropriate documentary evidence in support thereof has been adduced, but it cannot be said that the deceased was not earning anything from his work. Therefore, evidence regarding income of the deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, wage structure prevailing on the date of accident, price index and cost of living etc., I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 6,084/- per month. The annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 73,008/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 29,203/- as has rightly held by the Tribunal, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 1,02,211/-. 11. The deceased was aged about 32 years and was married and the claimants are the wife, children and mother of the deceased so deduction towards personal and caring expenses would be 1/5 i.e., 20,442/-, as has rightly held by the Tribunal, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 81,769/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 16, as has rightly held by the Claims Tribunal, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 13,08,304/-. The claimants are further entitled for loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-, for 6 funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- and as per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for loss of love and affection Rs. 40,000/- each i.e. Rs.3,20,000/- . Therefore, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 16,58,304/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Compensation towards Rs. 13,08,304/- dependency 02 03 Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Towards Love and affection to Rs. 3,20,000/- all the two claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- 04 Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total compensation Rs. 16,58,304/- Awarded 12. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 16,58,304/-. After deducting Rs. 10,37,680/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 6,20,624/-. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. 13. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants prays for applying the principle of pay and recover. It is clear from the evidence that though at the time of the accident, the driver/respondent No.1 of the offending vehicle had not possessed a valid and effective driving license, but the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company. Therefore, considering the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh and Another Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance 7 Company Limited and others reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558 ordering the insurance company to pay first and then recover and also taking note of the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly the fact that at the time of accident the vehicle was insured with insurance company, it is directed that the insurance company shall first pay the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants and then recover the same from the owner and/or driver of the offending vehicle. 14. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellants is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 15. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Tribunal below. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co- ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants resides. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.