Nafr High Court
Case Details
ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.09.07 15:16:38 +0530 2025:CGHC:43404 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.A.(C) No. 208 of 2024 1 - Rajesh Kumar Kannauje, S/o.Late Kartik Ram Kannauje, aged about 47 Years, R/o. Tad Marg, Nayak Road, Bajrang Chowk, Tatuva, Tahsil And Police Station Balodabzar, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 2 - Smt. Gayatri Kannauje, W/o. Rajesh Kumar Kannauje, aged about 44 Years, Resident Of Tad Marg, Nayak Road, Bajrang Chowk, Tatuva, Tahsil And Police Station Balodabzar, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Wamani Kannauje, D/o. Rajesh Kumar Kannauje, aged about 22 Years, Resident Of Tad Marg, Nayak Road, Bajrang Chowk, Tatuva, Tahsil And Police Station Balodabzar, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. Versus ----Appellants 1 - Samaylal Paikara Son Of Punau Ram Paikara Aged About 21 Years Resident Of Village Tatuva, Tahsil And Police Station Balodabzar, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Cg -22, J-4065) 2 - Ramnaresh Singh Son Of Vakil Singh Aged About 62 Years Resident Of Shani Mandir, Near Dashhara Maidan, Shatipara, Balodabazar, Tatuva, Tahsil Balodabazar, District - Baldoabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Cg-22, J-4065) 3 - Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Manager, Ambedkar Chowk, Balodabazar, Tatuva, Tahsil Balodabazar, District - Balodabzar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Cg-22, J-4065) --- Respondents Cause Title is taken from CIS system __________________________________________________________________ For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Shri Abhishek Mishra, Advocate appeared on behalf of Shri B.N. Nande, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________ -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 28 /08/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2024 an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Though opposed by the respondent but for the reason assigned in the application, the same is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. With consent of the parties, heard finally as the respondent No.3/Insurance Company is held liable to a compensation and no appeal has been filed as submitted by Shri Mishra, Advocate, notice to respondent No.1 and 2 are dispense-with. 4. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) has been filed by the appellants / claimants assailing the correctness and legality of the the award dated 27/03/2023 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short Tribunal), Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. - 102/ 2022. 5. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs.01,05,50,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,88,400/- in favour of the appellant/claimants on account of death of their son and brother namely – Dheeraj Kumar Kannauje in an accident that occurred on 07/01/2022 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. CG-22-J-4065 by respondent No. 1 / driver, owned by respondent No.2 / owner and insured with respondent No.3 / Insurance Company. 6. As per pleadings of the claim application filed under section 166 of the MV Act, the deceased was the son of the appellant No.1 and 2 and brother appellant No.3. It has been pleaded that the deceased was skilled driver and earning Rs.16,000/- per month being an driver of JCB and loader working in the Ambuja Cement under the contractor-ship of Sharma Associates. As the deceased died in the accident, -3- the appellants/claimants suffered irreparable loss and deprive of the dependency of the deceased. Therefore, the above stated compensation was claimed. 7. The respondent No.1 and 2 have filed their respective written statement and denied the averments of the claim application and pleaded that the claim application may be rejected. 8. Respondent No.3 pleaded that the offending vehicle was used without fitness permit and the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license, there is violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Hence, the Insurance company may be exonerated. 9. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed five issues and decided the same in favour of the appellants / claimants and awarded the above stated compensation by the impugned award which led to filing of this appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants / claimants submits that the deceased was a skilled driver and was working under a contractor namely - sharma associates and was involve in driving of JCB and loader in the Ambuja Cement. She submits that the factum of his employment was also proved in accordance with law and the deceased was only aged between 24-25 years. The finding of income with regard to the income of the deceased requires to be set aside and the income of the deceased ought to have been considered to Rs.16,000/-. Therefore, she submits that the amount of compensation may be enhanced suitably including awarding compensation on all admissible head. 11. Learned counsel for respondents No.3 vehemently opposes the submission and submits that the learned tribunal after meticulous examination of the evidence brought on record gave categorically finding that the income of the deceased could not be proved by cogent and prudent evidence and found his monthly income to Rs.7000/- which could not be said to be meager and the learned tribunal has also added future prospects and awarded compensation on all other -4- admissible head and just compensation was awarded. Therefore, the appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismiss. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission and also perused the appended documents. 13. The issue which comes for determination before this Court is to whether the income of Rs.7000/- as held by the tribunal requires interference by this Court or not. The appellants/claimants filed the claim application inter-alia pleading that deceased was a skilled driver and was involved in the driving of JCB and Loader under a contractor namely Sharma Associates which work in the Ambuja Cement. 14. In order to prove this pleadings the appellants have examined Rajesh Kumar Kannauje (PW-1) who deposed in the line of his pleadings and categorically stated that at the time of accident, his son was a driver and engaged in driving of JCB and Loader under Sharma Contractor at Ambuja Cement – Ravaan was earning Rs.16,000/- per month. To corroborate his evidence Lukesh Verma (PW- 2) was examined who stated that he was also a loader driver and Dheeraj Kumar Kannauje was working as helper and further stated that deceased - Dheeraj Kumar Kannauje was working as loader, driver in Ambuja Cement, Ravaan and he has engaged him with Sharma contractor at Ambuja Cement. He has also stated that deceased was earning Rs.16,000/- per month. These two witnesses were subject to cross-examinaton to dislodged the earning of the deceased. Of Course, the barring the oral evidence and no documentary is available on record to substantiate the income of the deceased. 15. From the perusal of the record, it appears that there is oral evidence available on regard to deceased being a skilled driver and involved in driving the JCB and Loader under Sharma Associates. The factum of the deceased being a skilled labour is also fortified by the driving license of the deceased which is marked as Ex.P-24C which indicates that the deceased was having a license to drive a -5- motorcycle with gear, light motor vehicle and transport vehicle. Apart from this Ex.P/25C is an entry pass of an Ambuja Cement Ltd. Unit Bhatapara. 16. The Motor Vehicle Act is a benevolent legislation. Strict application of Evidence Act may not sometime be necessary to prove the income of the deceased. The Court has to see the just compensation is awarded and arrive to conclusion on the basis of material evidence available on record as what will be the probable income that the deceased could have earn. Sometime it becomes very difficult for the claimants to get the documentary evidence with regard to income of the deceased. This Court can very well conduct an exercises to arrive to conclusion on the basis of material available on record with regard to income of the deceased. 17. The incident has occurred on 07/01/2022 and deceased was aged between 24-25 years and from the evidence on record and the documents as stated abve, this Court can safely gathered that deceased was a skilled driver and also working as a driver. Naturally deceased is a skilled driver, the finding of the learned tribunal with regard to his income to Rs.7000/- appears to be not based on proper appreciation of evidence which requires interference by this Court. 18. Apart from this in the year, 2023, the minimum wages could be more than Rs.10,000/-, therefore, taking into cumulative assessment, this Court is inclined to take the notional monthly income of the deceased to Rs.12,000/- per month. 19. In light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, the claimant is entitled for compensation in the following manner:- S.No. Head Calculation 1. Monthly Income Rs.12,000/- -6- 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 40% future prospect Rs.4800/- Monthly Income Rs.16,800/- Yearly Income Income after 1/2 deduction for personal expenses Rs.2,01,600/- (16,800 X 12) Rs.1,00,800/- (201600– 100800) Multiplier of 18 to be applied Rs.18,14,400/- (100800 X 18 ) Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses Rs.16500/- Rs.16500/- Filial consortium Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/- appellant No. 1 to 3 ) each to Total compensation Rs.19,67,400/- 20. Since the tribunal has already awarded Rs.10,88,400/-, after deducting the same from the above amount, the claimants are held entitled for additional compensation of Rs.8,79,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of appeal i.e. 30/01/2024. The amount shall deposited by the Insurance Company within a period of 60 days from the date of copy of receipt of this order. 21. After deposit, Rs.02,50,000/- each shall be invested in the name of appellant No. 1 to 3 as fixed deposit in the Nationalized Bank. Remaining amount shall be paid to appellant No.2 by bank transaction / account payee cheque.
Decision
22. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the award impugned to the above extent. Sd/-/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish