Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2025:CGHC:36663 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 3 of 2018 1 - Smt. Surekha Dutta Wd/o Devshish Dutta Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Jaitaloor College Para Post Eatpal Tahsil Beejapur District Beejapur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Master Deepesh Kumar Dutta S/o Late Devashish Dutta, Aged About 4 Years Through Natural Guardian Smt. Surekha Dutta Mother, R/o Village Jaitaloor College Para Post Eatpal Tahsil Beejapur District Beejapur, Chhattisgarh ................Claimants, District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Anil Udde S/o Laxmaiya Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Sangampalli Post Madded Tahsil Bhopalpattnam Police Station Madded District Beejapur, Chhattisgarh ..............Driver Of The Vehicle, Chhattisgarh 2 - Divisional Manager Forest, Beejapur Forest Division Beejapur, Chhattisgarh ...............Owner Of The Vehicle, District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Beejapur, District Beejapur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh 2 4 - (Died And Deleted) Haripad Dutta As Per Honble Court Order Dated- 10-06-2025. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Praveen Kumar Tulsiyan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 28.07.2025 1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 13.12.2017 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) passed in Claim Case No.12/2017 awarding a compensation of Rs.11,84,745/- with interest @ 9% per annum, in favour of the appellants/claimants for their irreparable loss. 2. The averment in the claim petition, in brief, the appellants and respondent No.4 are the legal heirs of the deceased, Late Devashish Dutta (Deceased), being his widow, minor son, and father, respectively. Respondent No.1 was the driver, and respondents No.2 and 3 were the registered owners of the Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. C.G.-02/F/0080, which was involved in the accident in question. On 06.12.2015, after delivering a consignment of furniture at Jagdalpur in the course of his business, the deceased was waiting for a bus when respondent No.1, who was personally acquainted with him, arrived in the said Bolero vehicle and offered him a lift. While travelling near the Temarubhata turn in Bhairamgarh, respondent 3 No.1 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, lost control, and the vehicle met with an accident. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and was admitted to a hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries during treatment. The incident was duly reported to the concerned police station, and a criminal case was registered against respondent No.1, culminating in the filing of a charge sheet before the competent court. At the time of the incident, the deceased was approximately 30 years old, engaged in the furniture business, and earning about Rs.20,000/- per month. His entire family was dependent on his income. Due to his unnatural death, the appellants filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.). Upon service of notice, the respondents appeared and contested the claim. The Tribunal framed four issues for determination. After considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimants and the material on record, the learned Tribunal, by award dated 13.12.2017, granted compensation of Rs.11,84,745/- in favour of the appellants. A certified copy of the impugned award is filed herewith and marked as Annexure A-1. Hence, the present appeal. 3. When the claim application for compensation was filed by wife and minor child and parents of the deceased (Devashish Dutta) before the Claims Tribunal against the driver/owner of the alleged vehicle. The deceased was aged about 30 years and the 4 claimants are the wife, children and parents of the deceased (Devashish Dutta), the Tribunal in absence of any proof of income of the deceased was taken as Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum (as per minimum wages of labour at the time of incident) and after adding 40% of future prospect the annual income of the deceased was assessed as Rs.50,400/-. As the age of the deceased was 30 years so the deduction towards his personal and caring expenses would be 1/3rd which is Rs.16,800/- and after deduction of personal and caring expense the annual income was considered as Rs.33,600/- (50400 – 16,800/-) and again considering the age of the deceased, as per Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, applying multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.5,71,200/- and, the Claimant No.1/wife of the deceased is entitled towards spousal consortium Rs.1,00,000/-, the claimants are entitled for loss of estate and for funeral Expenses Rs.25,000/-, for love and affection Rs.50,000/- was awarded, for medical expenses Rs.4,38,585/- was awarded, therefore, the awarded of total compensation of Rs.11,84,745/- (5,71,200 + 25000 + 50000 + 100000 + 438585 = 11,84,745) with interest @ 9% per annum, in favour of the appellants/claimants. Hence, this appeal has been preferred before this Court for enhancement. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the 5 lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. He further submits that the claimants have pleaded the income of the deceased as Rs.20,000/- per month which is 2,40,000/- per annum, but the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as only Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum and awarded the total compensation of Rs.11,84,745/-. He further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded the proper amount of treatment and further states that the Tribunal had erred in deducting the income of the deceased, therefore, this appeal may be allowed and needs to be enhanced suitably. 5. None appeared on behalf of Respondent No.1. 6. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 opposed the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellants and submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 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 view of the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 7. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.11,84,745/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 6 8. I have heard counsel for both the parties and perused the documents available on record. 9. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.15000/-. per month from his work, but there is no valid documentary evidence available on record in support thereof has been produced, but it cannot be said that the deceased was not earning anything from his work. Therefore, in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income proof 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. specially notification by Labour Department for minimum wages. Upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs.6,302/- per month as minimum wages, at the relevant time of accident. The annual income comes to Rs.75,624/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% as future prospects i.e. Rs.30,250/-, the annual income comes to Rs.1,05,874/-. 10.
Decision
In view of the above, in the instant case, the deceased was aged about 30 years and the dependents/claimants are the wife and child of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3rd i.e. Rs.35,291/-, therefore, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.70,583/- . In view of judgment of the 7 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 17, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.11,99,911/-. The claimants are further entitled for loss of estate is Rs.18,000/-, for funeral expenses Rs.18,000/- and as per ' Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the Claimant No.1 is further entitled for spousal consortium of Rs. 48,000/- x 2 = Rs.96,000/-. In light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors (2011) 1 SCC 343 this Court reassesses the compensation in the following manner:- Sn. Heads Calculation 1. Income of the Deceased Rs.75,624/- (Rs.6302/- Monthly) 2. Future Prospect 40% 3. Deduction 1/3rd 4. Total Income of the Deceased 5. Multiplier of 17 6. Estate (10% Loss of enhancement in every three years) 7. Funeral Expenses (10% enhancement in every three years) Rs.30,250/- Rs.35,291/- Rs.70,583/- Rs.11,99,911/- Rs.18,000/- Rs.18,000/- 8. Loss of Consortium (10% enhancement in every three years) Rs.48,000/- x 2 = Rs.96,000/- 9. For Medical Expenses Rs.4,38,545/- Total : Rs.17,70,456/- 8 11. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. Rs.17,70,456/-. After deducting Rs.11,84,745/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.5,85,711/- 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs.5,85,711/- in addition to what has already been awarded by the claims Tribunal. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of enhanced compensation of Rs.5,85,711/- within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 9% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The enhanced amount shall be payable to all appellants/claimants. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 13. In the result, appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award modified to the extent indicated above. The deposit tribunal shall pass appropriate order with regard to apportionment, investment and disbursement of the enhanced amount of compensation. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena