Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 304 of 2018 1 - Sarita Bai W/o Manohar Yadav Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Mariya Tola, Post And Chowki Podi, Tehsil Bodla, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Monika S/o Manohar Yadav Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Her Natural Mother Namely Sarita Bai W/o Manohar Yadav, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Mariya Tola, Post And Chowki Podi, Tehsil Bodla, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Chhatti Lal Kumbhkar S/o Ramsahay Kumbhkar Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Manpur, Police Station Pipariya, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. 2 2 - Amit Banjare S/o Uderam Banjare Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Baiharsari, Police Station And Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. 3 - Branch Manager L And T Insurance Company Limited, Branch First Floor, Chawla Complex, Sai Nagar Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Vehicle), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Abhipreet Bajpai, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dharmesh Srivastava, For Respondent(s) No. : None. Advocate. 1 & 2 For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Asish Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shokie Yadav, Advocate. MAC No. 220 of 2018 1 - Gangiya Bai W/o Wd/o Soupat Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Mariya Tola, Post And Police Chowki Podi, Tahsil And Police Station Kawardha, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ....................... (Claimants)., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Manohar Yadav S/o S/o Late Soupat Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Mariya Tola, Post And Police Chowki Podi, Tahsil And 3 Police Station Kawardha, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. .......................(Claimants)., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. 3 - Dhananjay Yadav S/o S/o Late Soupat Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Mariya Tola, Post And Police Chowki Podi, Tahsil And Police Station Kawardha, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. .......................(Claimants)., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Chhatti Lal Kumbhkar S/o S/o Ramsahay Kumbhkar Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Manpur, Police Station Pipariya, Tahsil Kawardha, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ..................(Onwer Of Vehicle). .......................(Non-Applicants)., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Amrit Banjare S/o S/o Uderam Banjare Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Beharari, Police Station And Tahsil Bodla, District- Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. .....................(Driver Of Vehicle). .............................. (Non- Applicants). 3 - Branch Manager, L And T Insurance Company Limited, Branch Raipur First Floor, Chawala Complex Sai Nagar, Devendra Nagar, Road Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ........................(Insurer Of 4 The Vehicle) .................(Non- Applicants)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhipreet Bajpai, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dharmesh Srivastava, For Respondent(s) No. : None. Advocate. 1 & 2 For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Asish Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shokie Yadav, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 20/08/2025 Order on Board MAC No. 304/2018 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/claimants for enhancement against the award dated 15.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Kabirdham (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 48/2016 whereby compensation of Rs. 1,71,223/- with interest @ 6% per annum, in favour of the appellants/claimants have been awarded. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that the appellants/claimants filed an 5 application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 before the Court of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Kabirdham District Kabirdham (C.G) claiming compensation to the tune of Rs 23.90,000/- for the injuries sustained by them. Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the offending vehicle a tractor bearing registration No. CG-109-JC- 0147, Respondent No 2 is its driver and Respondent No. 3 is the insurer The case of the claimants is that on 01.05 2016 at about 12:05 pm, the deceased Soupat Yadav along with the appellants was returning from Kawardha to their village on a motorcycle, and when they reached in front of the Sugar Factory at Village Ramjepur, Police Station Bodla, District Kabirdham, the offending vehicle driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 2 came from the opposite side and dashed their motorcycle, resulting in multiple grievous injuries to the deceased who remained hospitalized for more than 25 days. The appellants further pleaded that appellant No. 1, a labourer earning Rs. 4,000/- per month, has become permanently disabled due to the accident, and medical bills were submitted to prove the expenses. The offending vehicle was duly insured with Respondent No. 3, and its driver possessed a valid and effective driving license at the time of the incident. Respondents No. 1 and 6 2, in their joint return, denied the allegations and contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself, though they admitted that the vehicle was insured with Respondent No. 3, making the insurer liable to pay compensation. Respondent No. 3. however, in its return, denied liability, contending that the driver was not holding a valid license. the claim was exaggerated and baseless, and the vehicle was used in violation of policy terms After recording evidence and hearing arguments, the learned Claims Tribunal, by award dated 15.12.2017, partly allowed the claim and directed the respondents to pay Rs 1,71,223/- with 6% interest from the date of application till realization. The appellants have challenged the impugned award as being partly illegal, erroneous, and contrary to the material on record. 3. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,46,223/- towards medical bill, Rs. 10,000/- towards physical and mental agony. Rs. 5,000/- towards travelling and Rs. 10,000/- towards special diet. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 1,71,223/- has been awarded in favor of the appellants/claimants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,71,223/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the awarded 7 compensation by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Therefore, the compensation amount may be enhanced suitably Hence, this appeal may be allowed and awarded amount needs to be enhanced suitably. 5. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 3 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 6. None for respondents No. 1 & 2 le driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. 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 the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 9. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also 8 considering the fact that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental and physical agony, Rs. 25,000/- towards travelling and Rs. 20,000/- towards special diet are hereby enhanced.
Decision
11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 95,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. MAC No. 220/2018 12. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/claimants for enhancement against the award dated 15 12 2017 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Kabirdham (CG.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 47/2016 whereby compensation of Rs 3,07,600/- with interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded in the favour of the claimants of the deceased for their irreparable loss. 13. Brief facts of the case, is that the appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Court of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 9 Kabirdham District Kabirdham (CG), claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 56,50,000/- on account of the death of Soupat Yadav Respondent No 1 is the owner of the offending vehicle, a tractor bearing registration No. CG-09-JC-0147 (hereinafter referred to as the "offending vehicle"), respondent No. 2 is its driver, and respondent No. 3 is the insurer. The case of the claimants, in brief, is that on 01.05 2016 at about 12:45 pm, the deceased, Soupat Yadav, was returning from Kawardha to his village along with his daughter-in-law. Sarita Yadav, and Sarita's daughter on a motorcycle. When they reached in front of the Sugar Factory at Village Ramhepur Police Station Bodla, District Kabirdham, the offending vehicle being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 2 dashed into the motorcycle. causing grievous injuries to the deceased. He was admitted to the hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries during treatment. The claimants further submitted that the deceased, aged about 53 years, owned 15 acres of agricultural land and earned Rs. 8,00,000/- annually, and after his death, the agricultural income was reduced by about 50%. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, while denying the claimants' contentions, admitted the fact of the accident and contended that the vehicle was duly insured with respondent No. 3 and the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence, therefore, liability to pay 10 compensation, if any rested with the insurance company Respondent No. 3/insurance company, however, denied liability. asserting that the driver did not possess a valid licence, that the claim amount was exorbitant and baseless, and that the vehicle was being used in violation of policy conditions. After recording evidence and hearing both sides, the learned Claims Tribunal vide award dated 15.12.2017, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs. 3,07,600/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of institution of the application until realization. The impugned award, however, is assailed as being partly illegal, erroneous, and contrary to the material available on record. 14. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month i.e. Rs 48,000/- per annum. After adding 10% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 4,800/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 52,800/- After deduction of 1/2 of the income i.e. Rs 26,400/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 26,400/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 60 years and the appellants/claimants are the wife and children of the deceased the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 9 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs 2,37,600/- Further Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs 40,000/- towards loss of consortium has been awarded. 11 Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 3,07,600/- in favour of the wife and children of the deceased with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs 3,07,500/-which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably 16. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 3 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 17. None for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 le driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 19. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the 12 compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 20. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 21. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs 4,000/- per month which appears to be proper Hence, accepting the income of the deceased Rs 4,000/- per month, the annual income comes to Rs. 48,000/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 10% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 4,800/-, the annual income comes to Rs 52,800/-. 22. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 60 years and the appellant/claimants are the wife and children of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/2 (Rs. 26,400/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 26,400/- In view of judgment of the 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. 13 Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 9, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 2,37,600/-. The claimants are further entitled for Rs. 18,000/ towards loss of estate (increase of 10% in every three years) and Rs. 18,000/-for funeral expenses (increase of 10% in every three years). As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for Rs. (40,000X3+10%+10%).each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs 1,44,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. wife and children of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 4,17,600/- in the following manner:- S.No. 01 02 Heads Calcuation Towards loss of dependency Rs. 2,37,600/- Towards consortium along with Rs. 1,44,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X3+10% +10%). 03 Towards loss of estate along Rs. 18,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years. 04 Towards Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/- along with increase of 10% in every three years. Total Rs. 4,17,600/- 14 23. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 4,17,600/- After deducting Rs. 3,07,600/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 1,10,000/-. 24. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants ie wife and children of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. Raghu Jat Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge