Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:22724 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1250 of 2017 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ...............Non-Applicant No.3, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Suraj Bai W/o Late Loharam Sahu, Aged About 60 Years Caste Teli, R/o Village Lachhanpur, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ................Claimant, Chhattisgarh 2 - Babulal Thakur S/o Devi Prasad Thakur, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Bhanshanaka, Jhansi Road, Banaket, District Sagar M.P. At Present Address Shanti G.D.Ispat And Power Private Limited, Champa, Tahsil And Police Station Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ...............Non-Applicant No.1, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
3 - The Director Shri Anand Khemka, Shanti G.D.Ispat And Power Pvt. Ltd. Champa, Address Mahuda Tahsil Champa District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ..............Non-Applicant No.2, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 09/06/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) has been filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the award dated 17.05.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir – Champa (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 17/2016. 2. Heard on I.A. No.06/2020 – an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. On due consideration and for the reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Also heard on admission. Admit. 5. Appeal pertains to year 2017, arising out of the incident dated 03.04.2016 as such with the consent of the parties it is being decided finally. 6. By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 7,35,000/- to the claimants, on account of death of the Deceased Mithlesh in an accident by rash and 3 negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. Truck bearing registration No.MP15 G 1411 which was being driven by Respondent No.2 and insured with the appellant in the present case i.e. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 7. As per the pleadings, A motorcycle accident occurred on 3rd of April, 2016 when a truck driven rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle, killing both riders, namely, Jayprakash and Mithlesh Sahu. The claimant sough compensation, alleging the deceased Mithlesh earned Rs.7,000/- per month. The insurance company opposed, citing a discrepancy between the vehicle’s registered owner and the policyholder. The claims tribunal held the insurance company liable for 7,35,000/-in compensation, prompting this appeal. 8. Respondent No.2/Insurance company in its written statement denied the averments as usual and took a plea of violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. 9. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed 4 issues and after appreciating the material available on record decided the same in favour of the appellant/claimant holding respondent No.1 to 3 all are liable to pay the compensation. 10. Learned counsel for the insurance company/appellant submits 4 that there is non-joinder of the necessary parties in the present case as such the award which is been passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the second ground is that the deceased was unmarried, therefore, ½ shall be deducted as personal expenditure of the deceased but the Tribunal has erred and considered the same as ¼ instead of ½ as personal expenses. Whereas learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant submits that the award is in accordance with law and neither any objection has been raised before the Tribunal nor any issue has been framed in this respect. At the very first time, this issue is raised before this Court by way of this appeal. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, while filing cross-appeal prays for enhancement, submits that in the present case the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the multiplier of 15, as the deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of incident the appropriate multiplier would be of 18 as per Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Another 1 and the same has not been considered by the Tribunal. Secondly, counsel for the respondent/claimants submits that the income of the deceased has also not been considered in accordance with law. The deceased was working as an Electrician (skilled labour), Tribunal has consider the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month 1 Reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 5 but according to minimum wages as prescribed by the State of Chhattisgarh the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs.6648/- per month as he is skilled labour/electrician. He goes on to submit that the Tribunal has also not considered the future prospect as per the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi , 2 . Therefore, amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal should be enhanced. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records. 13. With regard to the submission of non-joinder of necessary parties raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, this Court observes that such an objection has been raised for the first time at the appellate stage. No such plea was taken before the learned Tribunal, nor was any issue framed on this aspect. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the said objection cannot be entertained at this stage and does not warrant any interference with the impugned award on this ground. 14. Barring the oral evidence of the appellant/claimant no document with regard to income of the deceased has been filed. However, looking to the date of accident i.e. 03.4.2016, nature of job, number of dependents & considering minimum wages, this Court is of the view that Rs.6,150/- is now being considered as monthly 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 6 income of the deceased and annual income would be Rs.6150/- x 12 = Rs.73,800/- per annum. 15. Upon perusing the record, this Court finds that the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased and in applying an incorrect multiplier and deduction towards personal expenses. It is not in dispute that the deceased was 20 years of age and was working as an electrician. In absence of direct evidence, it is appropriate to determine income on the basis of notified minimum wages. As per the State’s notification prevalent at the time, minimum wages for skilled labourers (electrician) was Rs.6,150/- per month. The Tribunal did not grant any amount under the head of future prospects. Following the case of Pranay Sethi , (supra) 40% of the established income is to be added as future prospects for a deceased aged below 40 years with fixed income. The deceased was a bachelor at the time of death. As per Pranay Sethi (supra) , 50% of income is to be deducted towards personal expenses. Moreover, as per Sarla Verma (supra), the correct multiplier to be applied for the age group of 21–25 years is 18. 16. So far as the personal expenses are concerned, the Tribunal has erred in deducting only ¼ of the income of the deceased towards personal expenditure. As the deceased was unmarried and aged about 20 years at the time of death, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) , the appropriate 7 deduction towards personal expenses ought to have been ½ of the income 17. Considering the above and taking guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi ; (supra) Sarla Verma (Supra) and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors3, this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:- S.N. Particulars Awarded by this Court 1. 2. Income of the deceased Rs.73,800/- Personal expenditure (½) Rs.36,900/- 3. Multiplier x18 Rs.6,64,200/- (36900 x 18) 4. 5. 6. Future Prospect (40%) Rs.2,65,680/- (6,64,200 x 40%) Total Income Rs.9,29,880/- ( 6,64,200 + 2,65,680) Funeral Expenses with 10% increase in every 3 Rs.18,000/- years. 7. Loss of Estate with 10% increase in every 3 years. 8. Loss of Consortium with Rs.18,000/- 10% increase in every 3 Rs.48,000/- years. Total compensation Rs.10,13,880/- 18. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed in-part and the cross-appeal of the claimant/Respondent No.1 is also allowed in-part. The amount of compensation of Rs.7,35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is now 3 Reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 8 enhanced to Rs.10,13,880/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.7,35,000/-, the appellant/claimant is held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.3,78,880/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @ 8% per anuum from the date of claim application. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. 19. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from today. 20. Consequently, the appeal as well as cross-appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA Saxena