Smt. Shani Suryavanshi and others v. Brijesh Choudhari and others) by the
Case Details
Page No.1 of 6 IN MAC-215-2022 SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:40928 NAFR MAC No. 215 of 2022 [Arising out of award dt. 08.11.2021, passed in Claim Case No.46/2020 (Smt. Shani Suryavanshi and others v. Brijesh Choudhari and others) by the 1st Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir (CG)] 1 - Smt. Shani Suryavanshi Wd/o Late Kartikram Suryavanshi, Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Auraikhurd, Tahsil Baloda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Anita Suryavanshi S/o Late Karitikram Suryavanshi, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Auraikhurd, Tahsil Baloda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ajay Suryavanshi S/o Late Kartikram Suryavanshi Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Auraikhurd, Tahsil Baloda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 4 - Vivek Suryavanshi S/o Late Kartikram Suryavanshi Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Auraikhurd, Tahsil Baloda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 5 - Shailendri Suryavanshi W/o Ashwani, Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Auraikhurd, Tahsil Baloda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 6 - Anjali Koshle, W/o Shravan Koshle Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Auraikhurd, Tahsil Baloda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants Versus 1 - Brijesh Choudhari S/o Bhutnath Choudhari, R/o Ward No. 14, Krantinagar, House No. 301, Pooja Apartment, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner) 2 - Reliance General Insurnace Company Limited, Branch 5 V Manjil, National Corporate Park Office No. 516, G.E. Road, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Comapny) 3 - Akram Khan S/o Ajmal Khan, Aged About 29 Years R/o Near Purani Masjid, Talapara, Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 4 - Smt. Shyam Kunwar Wd/o Damodar Prasad, Aged About 82 Years R/o Village Auraikhurd, Tahsil Baloda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ... Respondents Page No.2 of 6 IN MAC-215-2022 :
Legal Reasoning
For Appellants For Respondents : Mr. Chandra Kumar & Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocates ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal 13.08.2025 (Order on Board) 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 08.11.2021, passed by the 1st Addl. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Janjgir (CG) in Claim Case No.46/2020, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.4,93,000/- as compensation for the death of Kartik Ram Suryavanshi, who was aged about 65 years on the date of occurrence. 2. Facts of the case, relevant for disposal of this appeal, are that on the date of occurrence i.e. 20.04.2022, while deceased- Kartik Ram Suryavanshi was returning to his house on his motor-cycle and, at that juncture, the driver (respondent No.3) of the offending vehicle i.e. Car bearing No.CG-10-AJ-4372, drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor-cycle of the deceased, due to which, the deceased suffered injuries and died. Thereafter, the appellants, who are wife, mother-in-law and children of the deceased respectively, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.22,30,000/- pleading therein that on the date of the accident, the deceased was 65 years of age and used to earn Rs.40,000/- PM from his consultant work in a private company. The Page No.3 of 6 IN MAC-215-2022 deceased used to maintain his family members and, after his death, his family members have no any source of income to survive. Even otherwise, the deceased was aged about 65 years on the date of accident and was a able-bodied person and on account of his untimely death in the accident, the appellants have suffered economical and psychological difficulties. 3. Respondents No.1 & 3 – owner and driver of the offending vehicle submitted their reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that the accident was not caused by the aforesaid vehicle and the deceased has died on account of his own carelessness, moreover, on the date of the accident, the driver of the said vehicle was having valid driving license as well as the said vehicle (car) was duly insured with respondent No.2, therefore, the liability of compensation lies upon the Insurance Company i.e. respondent No.2. 4. Respondent No. 2 i.e. the Insurance Company has opposed the claim application stating that the said vehicle (Car) was being used in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased- Kartik Ram Suryavanshi died in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid vehicle i.e. Car bearing No.CG-10-AJ- 4372, which was driven by respondent No.03 and owned by respondent No.1 herein. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to Page No.4 of 6 IN MAC-215-2022 be proved, and after calculating the amount of compensation, awarded Rs.4.93.000/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month which should be Rs.8,600/- as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. It is further contended that the Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.1,24,000/- towards loss of consortium, whereas there are total 6 dependents/claimants in the present case, therefore, Rs.40,000/- X 6 = Rs.2,40,000/- ought to have been awarded as loss of consortium. As such, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the appellants have failed to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence, the Tribunal is justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. The amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. Page No.5 of 6 IN MAC-215-2022 9. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased Kartik Ram Suryavanshi to be Rs.6,000/-, however, in the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs.8,600/- PM (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time). Further, though compensation to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of consortium has been awarded, but it ought to have been Rs.40,000/- X 6 = Rs.2,40,000/-, as there are total 6 claimants in the present case. 10. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi 1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. 1. Income Heads Compensation Compensation awarded by the awarded by this Tribunal Rs.6,000 x 12 = Court Rs.8,600 x 12 = 2. 3. Future Prospect Deduction Rs.72,000/- NIL (-) 1/3 Rs.1,03,200/- NIL (-) 1/3 (i.e. (i.e. Rs.24,000/-) = Rs.34,400/-) = Rs.48,000/- (x) 7 Rs.68,800/- = (x) 7 = Rs. 4. Multiplier 1 2 3