Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:12996 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 44 of 2020 1 - Jitendra Kumar Hooda S/o Ram Kunwar Hooda Aged About 34 Years R/o House No. 08, Shriram Lotus Valley, Near Aiims Hospital, Tatibandh, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kalap Dev Hooda S/o Jitendra Kuma Hooda Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Legal Gurardian Father Jitendra Kumar Hooda No. 1), R/o House No. 08, Shriram Lotus Valley, Near Aiims Hospital, Tatibandh, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Dainy Hooda S/o Jitendra Kumar Hooda Aged About 2 Years Minor (Through
Legal Reasoning
12. There is no dispute with respect to the deduction towards personal and living expenses of deceased and multiplier applied by the learned Claims Tribunal. 13. For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants. 14. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.8,320/- and since at the time of death, the deceased was 31 years old, therefore, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the income of deceased is required to be enhanced by 40% towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.11,648/- (8320+3328). Thus annual income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the compensation comes to Rs.1,39,776/- (11,648 x 12). Out of this amount, one-third is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and after deducting one- third (as Appellants No. 4 & 5 are not held to be dependent upon deceased), annual loss of income of deceased would come to Rs.93,184/- (1,39,776 - 46,592). By applying multiplier of 17, as 6 applied by the Claims Tribunal, to annual income, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.15,84,128/- (93,184 x 17). Besides this, Appellant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium and Appellants No. 2 and 3 for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 130. In addition to aforesaid amount, Appellants No.1 to 3 are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.17,34,128/- (15,84,128 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000). This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 15. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants No. 1 to 3 as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above.
Arguments
Legal Gurardian Father Jitendra Kumar Hooda No. 1), R/o House No. 08, Shriram Lotus Valley, Near Aiims Hospital, Tatibandh, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Sila W/o Ram Kunwar Hooda Aged About 55 Years R/o House No. 08, Shriram Lotus Valley, Near Aiims Hospital, Tatibandh, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Ramkunwar Hooda S/o Puran Singh Aged About 60 Years R/o House No. 08, Shriram Lotus Valley, Near Aiims Hospital, Tatibandh, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Versus ... Petitioners 1 - Ajeet Kumar Mahto S/o Vishwanath Mahto Aged About 31 Years R/o S.K.M. Construction Fruit Market, Near Lalpur, Devpuri, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Other Address Hasanpur, Sarlouna, Thana Bagra, District Samastipur (Bihar) (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Cg-07, Bl – 2824). SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 2 - Anand Consturction And Transport Through Partner Rohit Kumar Agrawal, Son Of Dilip Kumar, Rajendra Singh Chhaba, R/o Behind Shanti Nitetan Apartment, Near Malviya School, Deepak Nagar, Durg (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Cg-07, Bl- 2824)., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, 2nd Floor, Rda Building, Bajrang Market, G.E. Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Cg-07, Bl-2824)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners For Respondents No. 2 : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. For Respondents No. 3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Shikhar Sharma, Advocate 19/03/2025 Order On Board 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 13.09.2019 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 538/2018. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 23.04.2018 at about 12:45 P.M., the deceased namely, Smt. Seeta Hooda was traveling along with her husband in their two-wheeler vehicle i.e. Activa bearing Registration No. CG 04 HU 2899 and as they reached near Tatibandh Chowk, the offending truck bearing Registration No. CG 07 BL 2824 which was driven by the Respondent No. 1 dashed the two-wheeler vehicle which caused serious injuries to the deceased Smt. Seeta Hooda and later on, she succumbed to her injuries. Subsequent to the accident of the deceased, a criminal case was lodged against the Respondent No. 1 bearing Criminal Case No. 91/2017 under Section 279, 337, 338, 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. At the time of death of the deceased, she was aged about 31 years. 3 3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the motor accidental death of the late Smt. Sita Hooda is not in dispute and the liability fastened upon the insurance company is also not in dispute. The appellants who are the legal representatives of the deceased have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation, learned counsel for appellant raised two grounds. Firstly, it is contention for learned counsel for the appellant, that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month only treating her to be unskilled labour overlooking the minimum wages fixed and prevailing on the date of incident i.e. 23.04.2018. 4. He contended that the deceased was residing and working in Raipur which is mentioned as a city in Schedule A of the notification issued by the Commissioner, fixing the minimum-wages of the daily-rated employee working within the cities mentioned in the Schedule A, B & C. For the cities mentioned in Schedule A for unskilled labour, the monthly wages fixed is Rs. 8,320/- whereas, the learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased (unskilled labourer) as Rs. 6,000/- per month only. He next contended that the learned Claims Tribunal fell into error in not awarding the parental consortium to the minor children of the deceased who are the Appellant No. 2 & 3 (aged about 6 years and 2 years on the date of accident). 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submits that the liability is fastened upon the insurance company as the motor vehicle which is involved in the accident is insured with the Respondent No. 3. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 opposes the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and would submit that the appellants failed to prove the income of the deceased and therefore, learned Claims Tribunal had not committed any error in assessing the 4 income of the deceased as Rs. 6000/- per month. He do not dispute the submission of the counsel for the appellant with respect to the parental consortium which is based upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 . 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant place before this Court, copy of the notification issued by the Commissioner, fixing the minimum wages of the daily-rated employee for perusal of this Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused documents filed along with appeal. 9. The short question involved in this case is, whether learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month and non-awarding any amount towards parental consortium to the minor children of the deceased. 10. So far as the income of deceased is concerned, learned Claims Tribunal disbelieved the nature of employment and income of deceased as pleaded and stated by claimants and assessed the income of deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month on notional basis considering him to be unskilled labourer. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for appellants placed a copy of Notification issued by the Labour Commissioner & Competent Authority, under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Raipur for perusal of this Court which prescribes wage of daily-paid employees working in different capacity. In this Notification, the Commissioner has categorized the employees in three categories i.e. un-skilled, semi-skilled, skilled and high skilled and fixed the wages for the year 2017-18. The wage for unskilled labourers has 5 been fixed at Rs. 8,320/- per month for ‘A’ category cities. Raipur is placed as ‘A’ category city. 11. Thus, considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, nature of work of deceased, as pleaded in claim application and stated by claimants, and also the wage rate prevailing on the date of accident in District Raipur as per notification of Commissioner minimum wages, in the considered opinion of this Court, the income of deceased treating him to be unskilled labourer can be taken as Rs.8,320/- per month for the purpose of calculating amount of compensation.
Decision
16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 17. Certified copy as per rules. Dey Sd/-d/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge