• Smt. Godawari, Wd/o Late Ravi Kumar, Aged About 21 Years, Present Address Village v. 1. Mahadeo Naik, S/o
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:44427 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 300 of 2019 • Smt. Godawari, Wd/o Late Ravi Kumar, Aged About 21 Years, Present Address Village Kormi, Kumharpara, Post Hardikala, Block Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Claimant). ... Appellant versus 1. Mahadeo Naik, S/o Shri Ravi Naik, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Parasiya, Post Haldi, District Baliya, Uttar Pradesh (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. Od-15-D-3878). 2. Santosh Chaudhary, S/o Vasudeo Chaudhary, R/o Village Baraipala Athapali, District Sambalpur, Orissa (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. Od-15-D-3878). 3. The Manager, Ifko Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited Supela, Bhilai District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. Od-15-D-3878). 4. Vishnu Prasad Dhuri, S/o Late Jhumuk Lal, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Village Devbalouda Urla, Charoda Ward No.30, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Claimant).
Legal Reasoning
There is no dispute to the fact that appellant is the wife and respondents No.4 & 5 are the aged parents of the deceased. From perusal of the impugned award, it shows that the learned Claims Tribunal has correctly assessed the amount of compensation and thus, awarded the above stated compensation. 13. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, thr learned Claims Tribunal in its wisdom has invested Rs.6,00,000/- to the appellant/wife and Rs.3,00,000/- each to respondents No.4 & 5 and the remaining amount of Rs.6,89,776/- was distributed in equal share amongst the appellant & respondents No.4 & 5/claimants. 14. Ofcourse, the appellant is the wife of the deceased, but in the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court cannot lose sight of the facts that now at present the respondents No.4 & 5 are of ripe age and are required to have the amount for their survival. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the reduction of share of the amount of compensation of respondents No.4 & 5 does not appeal to this Court and 5 is hereby repelled. 15. From perusal of the award, it appears that no filial consortium was awarded to the respondents No.4 & 5, and therefore, this Court inclined to award Rs.40,000/- each, total Rs.80,000/- to respondents No.4 & 5, as filial consortium to be deposited by the respondent No.3 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the learned Claims Tribunal shall disburse the same to the respondents No.4 & 5. 16. With the aforesaid observations and directions, instant appeal stands
Arguments
5. Smt. Kamla Bai, W/o Vishnu Prasad, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Village Devbalouda Urla, Charoda Ward No.30, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Claimant). ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. S. P. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, counsel appears on behalf of Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate. For Respondents No.4 & 5 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate. DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 01/09/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V.Act’) being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 25.08.2018 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the Court of First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No.148/2015. 2. By the impugned award, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.18,89,776/- in favour of the appellant & respondents No.4 & 5/claimants as compensation on account of death of Ravi Kumar Dhuri in an unfortunate accident, which took place on 26.06.2015 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Truck) bearing registration No.OD-15-D-3878 driven by respondent No.1/driver, which was owned by respondent No.2/owner and insured with respondent No.3/insurance company. 3. The appellant & respondents No.4 & 5/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the MV Act, claiming compensation of Rs.37,92,500/-. As per pleadings, the deceased was aged about 33 years, he was working in Milk Factory Urla, Charoda, District Durg (C.G.) under C.G. Co-operative Milk Federation Deobhog and was earning Rs.12,500/- per month. It was further pleaded that the appellant & respondents No.4 & 5/claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased, therefore, the aforesaid compensation was claimed. 4. Respondents No.1/driver and respondent No.2/owner of the offending vehicle remain ex parte before the learned Claims Tribunal. 5. Respondent No.3/insurance company filed written statement, denied the averments and pleaded that there is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, it may be exonerated from the liability. 6. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, learned Claims Tribunal framed as many 3 as six issues, decided the same in favour of the appellant & respondents No.4 & 5/claimants and awarded total compensation of Rs.18,89,776/-. The learned Claims Tribunal has also apportioned the amount of compensation in the following manner, i.e., Rs.6,00,000/- in favour of the appellant, Rs.3,00,000/- each in favour of the respondents No.4 & 5, was invested in FDR for 5 years and out of remaining Rs.6,89,776/- along with the interest to be distributed amongst the appellant & respondents No.4 & 5/claimants equally. 7. Appeal was initially filed by the appellant with a prayer to modify and enhancement of the impugned award, which was subsequently, amended and it was prayed that share of the compensation awarded in favour of the respondents No.4 & 5 may be reduced and the same may be paid to appellant. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that appellant being a wife is entitled to get higher share than parents. Apart from this, he submits that distribution equal share of the remaining amount of Rs.6,89,776/- is bad in law and the entire amount ought to have been disbursed in favour of the appellant. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that there is no violation of insurance policy and the insurance company has satisfied the impugned award, and therefore, it is an inter say dispute between the appellant & respondents No.4 & 5 with regard to distribution of share of the compensation awarded. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents No.4 & 5 submits that they are aged parents of the deceased and learned Claims Tribunal in all fairness, distributed the total amount of compensation equally in favour of all the claimants. He further submits that after the death of their son, they were 4 thrown out of the house by the appellant and later on, the appellant has re- married also. He further submits that now presently the respondents No.4 & 5 are septuagenarian, and therefore, in the event, of share of compensation awarded in favour of the respondent No.4 & 5 is reduced, it would be difficult for them to survive. Apart from this, he submits that though, the amount of compensation awarded in all respect is reasonable one, however, the learned Claims Tribunal failed to award any filial consortium in the light of Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 to the respondents No.4 & 5, therefore, he prays that this amount may be awarded in favour of respondents No.4 & 5. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of claim case available on record. 12.
Decision
disposed of. 17. The pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge