High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 NAFR HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.09.03 16:38:54 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 150 of 2020 1 - Pushpraj Mahant S/o Late Baleshwar Mahant Aged About 25 Years Occupation Agriculturist And Laborer, R/o Village Jajga Post Udaipur P.S. Lakhanpur Tahsil Udaipur District Surguja Chhattisgarh............Claiment, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Umaraj Mahant S/o Late Baleshwar Mahant Aged About 23 Years Occupation Agriculturist And Laborer, R/o Village Jajga Post Udaipur P.S. Lakhanpur Tahsil Udaipur District Surguja Chhattisgarh................Claiment, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Mahima Mahant D/o Late Baleshwar Mahant Aged About 25 Years Occupation Student, R/o Village Jajga Post Udaipur P.S. Lakhanpur Tahsil Udaipur District Surguja Chhattisgarh : Chhattisgarh.............Claiment, (Ambikapur), Surguja District 4 - Maniraj Mahant S/o Late Baleshwar Mahant Aged About 18 Years Occupation Student, R/o Village Jajga Post Udaipur P.S. Lakhanpur Tahsil Udaipur District Surguja Chhattisgarh.............Claiment, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh versus ... Appellants 1 - Nandu Das S/o D.Das Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Salka Post Salka P.S. And Tahsil Udaipur District Surguja Chhattisgarh.............Driver, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Mohd. Nure Huq S/o Abdul Huq R/o Kharsiya Naka Ambikapur Nagar, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh....................Owner, District : Surguja Chhattisgarh (Ambikapur), 3 - The Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Jashpur District Jashpur Through Branch Manager New India Insurance Company Ltd Branch Office Ambika Petrol Pump Nagar, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh..................Insurer, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Shubham Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No. 3. : Mr. Anil Gulati on behalf of Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board 29.08.2025 2 1) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) has been filed by the appellants/claimants, being aggrieved by the award dated 04.11.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) (for short ‘trial Court’) in Claim Case No. 44/2019. 2) By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 7,51,226/- against a claim of Rs. 7,51,226/- to the appellants/claimants, on account of the death of Kanti Das in an accident that took place on 04.11.2018 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Bus) bearing Registration No. CG-14-G-1152 by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3/Insurance company. As a result of the said accident, the deceased died in hospital during treatment. 3) As per the pleadings, the deceased/ Kanti Das was aged about 48 years and was working as Aganwadi worker and earning a monthly income of Rs. 5,063/-. The appellants/claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased. 4) The respondent No. 1 to 3 remained ex parte before the learned Tribunal. Respondent No.3 /Insurance company in usual course, denied the averments of the claim application and pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence and there is a violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. 5) On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed 4 issues and after appreciating the material available on record decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded above stated compensation. 6) Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the amount of compensation awarded is on the lower side and that the income of the deceased has been wrongly assessed. He further submits that consortium has not been awarded. Hence, suitable enhancement may be made by this Court. 7) Learned counsel for respondent No. 3, on the other hand, supports the award and submits that, in view of the evidence available on record, the findings of the learned Tribunal are justified and that just compensation has been awarded. He points out that, according to the claimants themselves, they had examined the employer of the deceased, and the income was found to be Rs. 5,063/- per 3 month. Therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to the income is based on proper appreciation of the evidence.” 8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records. 9) On perusal of the record, it is evident that the income of the deceased was duly proved to be Rs. 5,063/– per month, as she was working as an Anganwadi Worker. This fact has been satisfactorily established through the testimony of Suresh Pandey (AW-2), who has been examined on behalf of the claimants. In view of such cogent and reliable evidence, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal with regard to the income of the deceased. 10) However, so far as the addition towards future prospects is concerned, it appears that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in awarding only 15%. Considering that the deceased was aged about 50 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate addition towards future prospects ought to have been 30% in accordance with the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, this Court holds that instead of 15%, an addition of 30% towards future prospects is required to be made while computing the compensation. 11) In light of the above and taking guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others; (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors; (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:- S.N Particular Awarded by this Court Monthly Income of the deceased Future Prospect 30% Net Income Yearly income Personal expenditure 1/4 Yearly dependency 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Multiplier of 13 applied to assess 5,063/- 5,063X30%%=1519/- 5,063+1519=6582/- 6582 X12=78,984/- 78,984/4= 19,746/- 78,984-19,746=59,238/- 59,238 X13= 7,70,094/- yearly loss of dependency Funeral Expenses Loss of estate 8. 9. 15,000/- 15,000/- 4 10. Filial consortium 01,60,000/- (40,000/- each to A-1 to Total compensation A-4) Rs. 9,60,094/- 11) For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs.7,51,226/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 9,60,094/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 7,51,226/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 2,08,868/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @6% per anuum from the date of appeal i.e. 05.01.2020. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. 12) The respondent No. 3 insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days. On such deposit being made, the learned Tribunal shall pass an appropriate order with regard to apportionment, investment and disbursement of enhanced amount to appellants/claimants. 13) Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari