1 - Pushpanjali Jhariya D/o Late Lakhan Lal Jhariya and W/o Shri Shiv Kumar v. 1 - Shrawan Kumar Sahu S/o Mannu Sahu Present Address - C/o Shriram
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:7142 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Judgment Reserved on 08/11/2024) (Judgment Pronounced on 07/02/2025) MAC No.136 of 2019 1 - Pushpanjali Jhariya D/o Late Lakhan Lal Jhariya and W/o Shri Shiv Kumar Jhariya, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Nawagaon, Police Station And Tahsil - Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Shraddha D/o Late Shri Lakhan Lal Jhariya, Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Nawagaon, Police Station And Tahsil - Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Shrawan Kumar Sahu S/o Mannu Sahu Present Address - C/o Shriram Sahu, Sheetla Para, Near Pangaon House, Ram Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. R/o Village Bhatgaon, Gadariya Para, Ward No. 2, Tahsil - Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle No. CG- 04HT-1480) 2 - Branch Manager Magma ADI General Insurance Company Limited, Office No. 501 And 509 To 512, Fifth Floor, D.B. City Corporate Park, Plot No. 1, Block No. 9, Rajbandah Maidan, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of The Offending Vehicle No. CG-04HT-1480) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : None, though served. For Respondent No.2
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Arvind Panda, Advocate ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.02.08 13:51:00 +0530 2 (Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge) C A V Judgment 1. The appellants/claimants have filed the instant appeal against the impugned award dated 29.10.2018 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Fast Track Court, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case no. 86/2016 whereby the learned tribunal has granted an award of Rs.30,000/- to the claimants. The instant appeal is for enhancement of the said award. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.08.2016 the mother of the present applicants along with her son-in-law namely Shiv Kumar Jhariya and brother-in-law namely Janak Lal Jhariya was going to Ganesh Vinayak Hospital, Raipur by ambulance and the aforesaid ambulance was being driven slowly and carefully in his own side at that time the offending vehicle Tata S. (Chhota Hathi) bearing registration No. CG-04HT-1480, being driven by the respondent no. 2, rashly and negligently dashed the ambulance due to which mother of the applicants received grievous injuries and on account of which she was admitted to Govt. Hospital, Dhamdha and she was referred to Govt. Hospital, Durg where she died on 27.082016 during treatment. Postmortem of the body was conducted by doctors of Govt. Hospital, Durg. 3. Thereafter, the present appellants filed a motor accident claim case 3 which came to be registered as MACT No.86/16 wherein the claimants made averments that on the date of incident 26.08.2016 the deceased Sushila Bai was 50 years old and healthy and hard worker lady and after death of her husband in the year 2001 she was taking care of her children and both the applicants were residing with her. It was further stated by the applicants that the deceased Sushila Bai has 8 acres of agricultural land and from which she used to earn Rs. 1,60,000/- per year and maintain their children. It was further stated that on account of death of the Sushila Bai family members are deprived from consortium, love and affection of the head of the family. The appellants filed the claim application before the learned Tribunal and claimed of Rs. 29,30,000/- as compensation from respondents/non applicants jointly or separately. 4. That, the respondent no. 1 filed his written statement and denied all the facts except the undisputed facts and replied that the incident/accident was not occurred by the vehicle of the respondent no. 1. It was further stated by the respondent no. 1 that the Maruti Omni bearing registration no. CG-04HB-1795 was being driven by driver rashly and negligently and he dashed his vehicle Tata S. and the driver and cleaner of the vehicle received grievous injuries and driver of the vehicle died during treatment. It is further stated that aforesaid information was given by the cleaner of the vehicle Ramesh 4 Pal. It is further stated that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Omni and not by his driver, therefore, he is not liable to pay any compensation. 5. The Insurance Company/ respondent no. 3 therein has denied the entire facts by filing his reply as per which the non applicant no.2 was not having valid and effective driving license and further contended that the vehicle is a goods carrier but 7-8 persons were traveling by the vehicle which is breach of conditions of the policy, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. The learned claim tribunal while deciding the application of the claimants under the Motor Vehicle Act examined the claimant's witnesses as well as other witnesses. The learned claim tribunal after completion of the evidence of the parties passed the impugned award dated 29.10.2018 and held that the claimants/appellants were not dependent to the deceased and compensation was not awarded on any head but a lump sum awarded Rs. 15000-15000/- total Rs. 30,000/- for funeral expenses and loss of estate. Hence this appeal by the claimants. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the compensation awarded by the learned claim tribunal is low, illegal and without appreciating the facts and evidence and without following the rule of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. He would next contend that the tribunal has not considered the fact that appellant 5 No.2 is a non-married daughter and both the appellants were residing with the deceased and depend upon her. He would next contend that after the death of the deceased the appellants are facing grave problems. He would next contend that the tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of conventional head as pain and suffering; for loss of love and affection; loss of estate etc. He placed his reliance in the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender and Others {(2020) 11 SCC 356}; Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kamta Prasad Sahu & Others {2021 SCC Online Chh 1851} and Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Jasita Poonam Ekka & others {2024 SCC Online CHH 4582} and would lastly contend that the compensation may be enhanced. 8. No representation is made on behalf of Respondent No.1, despite service of notice. 9. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2/Insurance Company would submit that as per the evidence available on record especially the evidence of AW-1 Pushpanjali Jhariya she admitted that both the claimants are married daughter and living separately in matrimonial house with their husband, and they are depended upon the husband which clearly establishes the fact that prior to death of Smt. Shushila Bai they were living separately from their mother and they are not dependent upon the income of the deceased therefore they cannot be 6 considered as dependent. He would next contend that the Tribunal after considering the statement of AW-1 Pushpanjali Jhariya recorded a finding that the claimants are a legal representative but not dependent, therefore they are not entitled to get compensation for loss of dependency and only entitled for loss of Estate and expenses incurred in Funeral and awarded Rs. 30000/- on conventional head, which is just and proper. He would place his reliance on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manjuri Bera Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in AIR 2007 SC 1474 and National Insurnace Compant Ltd. Vs. Birender and Ors {AIR 2020 SC 434} and would submit that the tribunal has rightly held that the tribunal has passed the just and fair compensation. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and documents with utmost circumspection. 11. On perusal of the record I have found that appellants No.1 & 2 are married daughters of the deceased and they are residing with their husbands separately. No doubt they are legal representatives of the deceased. AW-1 Pushpanjali Jhariya admitted in his statement at para 5 that she and her sister both have performed marriage and they are living separately in their maternal houses. Shiv Kumar AW-2 in his cross-examination at para 5 has admitted that the claimant/appellant Pushpanjali is his wife and she is residing with 7 him and she is not dependent upon the deceased. He also admitted that claimant No.2 is also married. 12. From perusal of the above statements it is apparent that prior to death of Smt. Sushila, the appellants were living separately from their mother and they are not dependent upon the income of the mother/deceased. 13. The learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 30,000/- as compensation to the appellants, which is against the law. Under the "no fault liability" provision in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the minimum compensation payable in India for a death caused by a motor vehicle accident is Rs. 50,000/-, therefore, the award less than that amount cannot be passed. Appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased, therefore, they are granted award of Rs.50,000/- due to accidental death of their mother. Further the appellants are granted Rs.15000/- for funeral expenses & Rs.15000/- for loss of estate. The learned Tribunal has not considered the consortium part of the parental loss to the appellants, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the appellants are entitled to get compensation of Rs.40,000-40,000/- each under the head of loss of parental consortium. 14. In light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. {(2018) 18 SCC 130} and National Insurance Co. Ltd. 8 Vs Pranay Sethi {(2007) 16 SCC 680}, this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Particular Awarded by the Court 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Compensation amount due to death of the deceased Rs.50,000/- Loss of Parental Consortium to the appellants Rs.80,000/- (40,000/- each) Funeral Expenses Loss of estate Total compensation Rs. 15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.1,60,000
Decision
15. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to 1,60,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 30,000/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,30,000/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per anuum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal, till its realization. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 9 16. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. The concerned tribunal shall pass appropriate order with regard to apportionment, investment and disbursement of the enhanced amount of compensation. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Ashu