Durg, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - K. Naagraj @ Sonu S/o Late K. Chandrashekhar Aged About 34 Years
Case Details
Page No.1 2025:CGHC:13523 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 348 of 2020 1 - Chandrashekhar Verma S/o Nohar Singh Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No. 28, Mararpara, Chawani Bhilai, Police Station Jamul, Tehsil And District Chhattisgarh Durg Chhattisgarh, District Durg, : 2 - Smt. Uttara Verma W/o Shri Chandrashekhar Verma Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No. 28, Mararpara, Chawani Bhilai, Police Station Jamul, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh .. Appellant(s) versus 1 - K. Naagraj @ Sonu S/o Late K. Chandrashekhar Aged About 34 Years R/o Bajaj Nagar, House No. 1/f, Sadak Avenue-A, Zone-02, Khursipaar, Bhilai, Durg Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh Police Station Khursipaar, ............(Driver), And District Durg, District Tehsil : 2 - Branch Manager National Insurance Company Limited, Branch No. 01, Bhutani Complex, G. E. Road, Power House Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ........(Insurer), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) _________________________________________________________
Legal Reasoning
For Appellants Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate on behalf of : Mr. Prasanjeet Dutta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 21/03/2025 1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal challenging the award dated 31.08.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims NISHA DUBEY Digitally signed by NISHA DUBEY Date: 2025.03.26 10:22:12 +0530 Tribunal, Durg, District- Durg (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.A.C.T. No.148/2018 whereby the Claims Tribunal allowed claim Page No.2 application of claimants/appellants in part and awarded compensation of Rs.10,05,200/- herein along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application, in a fatal accident case. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 20.11.2016 at about 23:50 p.m. Gajendra Singh along with his brother Omprakash when returning on motorcycle bearing registration mark CG07-AC-1034 from Smriti Nagar, Junwani, Bhilai after attending the marriage function and reached near Chhawani Chowk, Bhilai, motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.07-AR-6085, which was coming from opposite direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1 herein, dashed their motorcycle and caused accident. In the said accident, Gajendra Verma suffered grievous injuries. He was brought to Chandulal Chandrakar Hospital, Supela, Bhilai for treatment where the doctor referred him to B.S.R. Apollo Hospital, Junwani, Bhiai. During the course of treatment, Gajendra Chandrakar died on 28.11.2016. Accident was reported to concerned police station based on which Crime No.619/2016 for commission of alleged offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against respondent No.1. 3. Claimants/appellants herein, who are parents of deceased, filed an application claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.53,41,020/- under various heads on the ground that on the date of accident, deceased was working as Washing Boy in Page No.3 Jayaka Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Bhilai, earning Rs.6,000/- per month and they were dependent on earning of deceased. 4. Non-applicant No.1 herein submitted his reply to claim application and denied all adverse pleadings made in application. He pleaded that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.2 Insurance Company, therefore, liability, if any, for payment of compensation would be on the insurance company. 5. Respondent No.2 Insurance Company filed its separate reply and denied averments made in claim application except the fact that on the date of accident the offending vehicle was a car not a bike. One of the person Gopi Sahu who was pillion rider of two wheeler had stated that an unknown four wheeler had dashed the two wheeler. As per contents of Merg intimation accident occurred due to hitting of two wheeler by an unknown car. It was pleaded that accident in question occurred due to negligence on the part of driver of motorcycle himself, therefore, claimants are not entitled for any amount of compensation. 6. The Claims Tribunal on appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record (oral and documentary both) by the respective parties has held that accident was result of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1, driver of offending vehicle; issue of contributory negligence on the part of deceased driver of motorcycle was not found to be proved, partly allowed claim application and awarded compensation of Rs.10,05,200/- along Page No.4 with interest @ 9% p.a.. The Claims Tribunal saddled liability upon insurance company to pay compensation by holding that there was no violation of any of the conditions of insurance company. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submits that the amount of compensation awarded is on lower side. He contended that the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have computed the amount of compensation based on the minimum wages as fixed by the competent authority. However, the income of the deceased has been assessed at Rs.6,500/- per month, which is on lower side. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of loss of consortium to the appellant who are parents of the deceased. Hence, he prays that the amount of compensation be enhanced. 8. Learned counsel for respondents opposes the submission made by counsel for appellant and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as pleaded and stated by the claimants themselves before the Claims Tribunal I,e, Rs.6,500/- per month and therefore it cannot be said to be erroneous. He contended that the deduction and the multiplier is rightly applied by the Claims Tribunal in terms of the decision in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & other v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Hence the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in the given facts and circumstances of case is just and Page No.5 proper and does not call for any interference. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. As regards income of the deceased is concerned, in claim application, the claimants have pleaded the income of deceased as Rs.5,996/- per month and the father of the deceased Chandrashekhar Verma(PW-1) in his statement has stated that the income of deceased as Rs.6,500/- per month and in support thereof exhibited salary slips (Ex.P-17 to P-22) which bears seal of Jayaka Automobile Private Limited where deceased was stated to be working as Washing Boy. The Claims Tribunal considering that documents Ex.P-17 to P-22 could not be controverted by the non-applicants, accepted the monthly income of deceased at Rs.6,500/- and fixed it accordingly. This being the position, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of deceased at Rs.6,500/-. Further, selection of multiplier, addition to income towards future prospects and deduction for personal and living expenses are also correct and does not call for any interference. 11. However, from perusal of the impugned award reveals that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium. In case at hand, deceased was the son of the appellants herein and therefore, as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, they are entitled for amount towards filial consortium, which is right of the parents who lose their child in a Page No.6 motor accident. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. It is directed that appellants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each i.e. total Rs.80,000/-, towards filial consortium. This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its payment. Instead of Rs.10,05,200/-, as awarded by the Claims Tribunal now the appellants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.10,85,200/- (10,05,200+80,000). Amount of compensation paid to claimants pursuant to the award passed by Claims Tribunal shall be adjusted from the compensation awarded and computed above. Other conditions of award shall remain intact. 13.The impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Nisha