1. Ku. Manpreet Kaur D/o Late Satnam Singh Aged About 21 Years. 2. Atinder v. 1. Sukhiya Bai S/o Late Devilal Aged About 50 Years R/o Bhattipara Durg Ko
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:28861 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 194 of 2020 1. Ku. Manpreet Kaur D/o Late Satnam Singh Aged About 21 Years. 2. Atinder Pal Singh S/o Late Satnam Singh Aged About 19 Years 3. Ku. Mandeep Kaur D/o Late Satnam Singh Aged About 16 Years Appellant No.3 is minor through natural guardian Sister Ku. Manpreet Kaur D/o Late Satnam Singh, All R/o Qr. No.13/5, Street Avenue B, Sector 01 Bhilai, Police Station Bhilai Bhatti, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants-claimants versus 1. Sukhiya Bai S/o Late Devilal Aged About 50 Years R/o Bhattipara Durg Kondul, Tahsil- Bhanupratappur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh. (LR of Driver) 2. Shivcharan Sinha S/o Sonsai Sinha Aged About 44 Years R/o Bhattipara Durgkondul, Tahsil- Bhanupratappur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh. (Owner), 3. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Durg Branch, Branch Office Parakh Bhawan, Station Road, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer)
Legal Reasoning
4. Smt. Kanso Kaur W/o Late Darshan Singh R/o Near Jiya Medical, Hyderabad Colony 18 Number Road, Camp-1, Bhilai, Police Station Chawni, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents 2 For Appellant Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate : For Respondent No.1, 2 & 4 : None though served. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. .H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms.Preeti Yadav, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 30/6/2025 1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 7.11.2019 passed in Claim Case No.56/2018. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that claimants-appellants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.1,14,27,602/- under various heads, against death of Satnam Singh in a motor vehicular accident. According to claimants (children of deceased) on 3.3.2017 at about 5:15 p.m. Satnam Singh along with his wife Manjeet Kaur was returning to Bhilai from Pakhanjur on his motorcycle. When they reached on Main Road Tekri, Palachur, one Tata Sumo Spacio bearing registration number CG07-AK-0634 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), driven rashly and negligently by non- applicant No.1, dashed motorcycle of Satnam Singh as a result Satnam Singh and Manjeet Kaur both have sustained grievous injuries and died on spot. It was further pleaded that at the time 3 of accident, deceased was 50 years of age, working as Senior Technician in Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai and getting salary Rs.59,996/- per month. 3. Non-applicant No.2-owner of offending vehicle filed reply to claim application pleading that accident occurred due to rash driving by the deceased. On the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3, therefore, if any compensation is awarded to claimants then non-applicant No.3 is liable to pay the same. 4. Non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company also filed a separate reply and took a stand that there was head on collusion between two vehicles, therefore, it is the case of contributory negligence. It was further pleaded that liability of insurance company is subject to production of valid and effective driving license of the driver of offending vehicle. 5. The Claims Tribunal upon appreciating the pleadings and evidence placed on record (oral and documentary both) by the respective parties has arrived at a conclusion that accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No.1-driver; there was no element of contributory negligence; there was no violation of any condition of insurance policy. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal partly allowed claim application and awarded compensation of Rs.46,28,904/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. 6. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submits that the 4 Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased on lower side overlooking salary slip (Ex.P-24A) placed on record. He contended that the Claims Tribunal though assessed gross salary of deceased as Rs.52,033/- by taking into consideration basic pay and dearness allowance only and not other perks and allowances mentioned in salary slip of deceased, which is of just preceding month of motor accidental death of deceased government employee. He next contended that the Claims Tribunal though assessed age of deceased as 50 years based on date of birth mentioned in Ex.P-25 issued by the employer but not awarded any compensation towards loss of future prospects. Whereas, there should be addition of 15% of the assessed income of the deceased for computing the amount of compensation. He next contended that the deceased was survived by children and his mother, but the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium. In support of his submission, he places reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. He submits that the Claims Tribunal has also not awarded compensation under the head ‘loss of estate’. Hence, he prays that amount of compensation awarded to appellants be enhanced suitably. 7. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for respondent 5 No.3 opposes submissions of learned counsel for appellants and submits the Claims Tribunal considering the evidence of AW-2 Mohan Singh Thakur, Deputy Manager (Finance), Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, has rightly taken into consideration Basic Pay and Dearness Allowance for computing income of the deceased which does not call for any interference. Other perks and allowances are fluctuating income and cannot be treated as regular income of deceased, hence rightly disallowed by the Claims Tribunal. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal. 9. Perusal of the record would reveal that in order to prove income of deceased, claimants have submitted salary slip of the deceased as Ex.P-24A, which is of the month of February 2017. Deceased died in a road accident occurred on 4.3.2017. Salary slip, Ex.P-24A, mentions gross salary of the deceased as Rs.59,966/-. Under the column of income, apart from basic pay, dearness allowance, the deceased was being paid incentive of Rs.1,026/-, MPPIS Rs.730/-, Canteen Allowance of Rs.832/-, CCA of Rs.120/-, additional wages of Rs.1678/-, Fuel Expense of Rs.300/-, Night Allowance of Rs.900/- and Cafeteria Perk by way of special allowance as Rs.2228/-. Considering the nature of aforementioned other heads on which payment is 6 made to the deceased, the same should have been treated as income of deceased, except payment made towards incentive and additional wages. Further, salary slip, Ex.P-24A, shows deduction of Rs.5,765/- per month of income tax, which is liable to be deducted from the salary of deceased. Thus, monthly income of the deceased after deducting amount of incentive, additional wages and income tax comes to Rs.51,497/- (59966- 1026-1678-5765). Hence, it is ordered that net monthly income of the deceased was Rs.51,497/-. 10. Perusal of impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal has not added anything towards loss of future prospects. On the date of accident, the deceased was in the age group of 50 to 60 years and was in government job, therefore, as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, there shall be addition of 15% of assessed income towards loss of future prospects. It is ordered accordingly. 11. Deceased was survived by three children and mother i.e. appellants and respondent No.4 herein. Therefore, total number of dependants are four and being so, as per decision of Sarla Verms vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 there shall be deduction of one-fourth from the income of deceased towards his personal and living expenses. It is ordered accordingly. 7 12. Multiplier of 11 applied by the Claims Tribunal is in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Supra). 13. Impugned award further reveals that while computing the compensation, the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for loss of consortium. The award under the head of loss of consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation as laid down in the matter of Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (supra) according to which appellants No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4 are entitled to consortium under parental consortium and filial consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. Hence, I deem it appropriate to award an amount of Rs 40,000/- each to appellants No.1 to 3, who are children of deceased, and respondent No.4, mother of deceased, for loss of parental consortium and filial consortium respectively. 14. Further, the Claims Tribunal awarded lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/- towards ‘loss of love and affection’. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that Loss of Consortium subsumes Loss of Love and Affection. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal was not justified in awarding compensation towards ‘loss of love and 8 affection’ to the claimants. Once the spouse of the deceased is compensated under head 'loss of consortium', which includes loss of love and affection, there cannot be any separate award under the head 'loss of love and affection'. Hence, amount awarded by Claims Tribunal for loss of love and affection requires to be deducted from the total awarded compensation. It is ordered accordingly. 15. It can be seen that compensation on account of "funeral expenses" has been awarded as Rs.25,000/- but no compensation on account of "loss of estate" has been awarded. Whereas, in terms of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs.15,000/- each is required to be awarded as compensation for "funeral expenses" and "loss of estate". Accordingly, it is ordered that appellants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- each for funeral expenses and loss of estate. 16. For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to the claimants/appellant. 17.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.51,497/- per month and after adding 15% towards future prospects, the monthly income of deceased would come to Rs.59,221/- and annual income would be Rs.7,10,652/-. Out of this amount, one-fourth is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased and after deducting one-fourth, annual dependency would come to Rs.5,32,989/-. Applying multiplier 9 of 11, as applied by Claims Tribunal on the basis of age of deceased mentioned in the order Ex.P-25, the loss of dependency would be Rs.58,62,879/- (5,32,989 x 11). Besides this, appellant No.1 to 3 are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium; respondent No.4-mother of deceased, is entitled for Rs.40,000/- for loss of filial consortium. In addition to aforesaid amount, appellants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate. Thus, now the claimants are entitled for total amount of compensation of Rs.60,52,879/-. This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of application till actual payment is made. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount disbursed to appellant pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted.
Decision
18.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-