1 - Omprakash S/o Pareshwar , Caste Halba, Aged About 25 Years 2 v. 1 - Sadanand Vaidya S/o Devnath Vaidya Aged About 34 Years Caste Kalar, R/o
Case Details
-1- 2025:CGHC:17401 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 336 of 2020 1 - Omprakash S/o Pareshwar , Caste Halba, Aged About 25 Years 2 - Smt. Hemlata W/o Omprakash Aged About 24 Years Both are R/o Village Bedagaon, Tahsil Bakawand, Police Station Karpawand, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Sadanand Vaidya S/o Devnath Vaidya Aged About 34 Years Caste Kalar, R/o Village Bedagaon and Village Narawand, Police Station Karpawand, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh 2 - Devnath Singh Vaidya S/o Basudev Vaidya Aged About 54 Years Caste Kalar, Mob.No.9424169241 Owner Of Vehicle Pick-Up No. C.G.17 K.J. 8184, R/o Village Narawand, Near Mata Mandir, Police Station Karpawand, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh 3 - Manager S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited Branch Pujari Chamber 4, Floor, Pachpedi Naka, Near Pujari Park, Dhamtari Raod, N.H. 43, Raipur, Post Raipur, Pachpedi Naka, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) ___________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 2 : None appears though served For Resp. No.3 __________________________________________________________ Mr. Utsav Mahishwar, Advocate : Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.04.25 14:20:13 +0530 S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board -2- 16/04/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally. 2. This is the claimants’ appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (CG) vide award dated 13th November 2019 passed in Claim Case No.217 of 2018. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants filed an application under Sections 166 and 140 of the Act of 1988 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (CG), pleading therein that on 29.10.2018 at about 8.00 a.m. when their son Gautam was on the side of the road in front of the house, non-applicant No. 1 driving a pickup no. CG 17 KJ 8184 rashly and negligently came from opposite side and dashed Gautam with great force due to which Gautam sustained grievous injuries on his head, waist and other parts of the body. He was taken to the Primary Health Center for treatment where Gautam died during treatment. A total compensation amount of Rs.11,82,000/- along with 9% interest has been sought under different heads due to untimely death of deceased Gautam. 4. Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 by filing their written statement have denied the pleadings made in the claim application. Fact of -3- occurring accident with the pickup vehicle no. CG 17 KJ 8184 has been denied. Apart from this, in alternate, it has also been pleaded that the said vehicle was owned by non-applicant No. 2 on the date and time of the accident and it was being driven by non-applicant No. 1 and the vehicle was insured with non-applicant No. 3. Non- applicant No. 1 had a valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle. Non-applicant no. 2, owner of the vehicle, had a valid and effective fitness certificate for the vehicle. Hence, the liability of paying compensation, if any, is not on non-applicants No. 1 and 2 but on non-applicant No. 3/insurance company. 5. Non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company has also denied the pleadings made in the claim application and has mainly taken the ground that non-applicant No. 1 did not have a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. Deceased Gautam was an innocent child, whose family members might have left the child on the road without taking proper care and the accident might have been occurred due to the sudden appearance of the vehicle due to ignorance. The vehicle owner/non-applicant No. 2 has clearly violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, non-applicant No. 3 is not liable to pay any amount of compensation, if awarded, to the claimants. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by the respective parties, held that on the date of accident, driver of Pick-up vehicle i.e. non-applicant No.1 drove the said offending vehicle rashly and negligently, due -4- to which, said accident occurred in which Goutam, a boy child aged about 2 ½ years, sustained grievous injuries resulting in his death, awarded Rs.5,20,000/- as compensation. Recording a finding that breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, learned Claims Tribunal held non-applicant No.3 liable to pay the amount of compensation to the applicants/claimants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants raises a short point that the amount awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal under other conventional heads appears to be on lower side, particularly looking to the tender age of the deceased, who was merely a 2 ½ years old boy. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.3/ Insurance Company has opposed claim of the claimants for seeking enhancement and prays to dismissal of the appeal on the ground that in case of death of minor child, the notional income held by the Tribunal is correct and also multiplier applied is correct. Accordingly, the compensation awarded, which is just and reasonable. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused records of the Claims Tribunal. 10. Undisputedly, non-applicant No. 1 is the driver, non-applicant No. 2 is the registered owner of the offending vehicle and the said vehicle was insured with non-applicant No. 3. Appellants/claimants are father and mother of deceased- Goutam aged about 2 ½ years. 11. Upon perusal of the records and after considering the submissions -5- advanced, this Court finds that the learned Claims Tribunal relying upon the decision of this Court in Yogendra Shukla & Anr. vs. Rakesh Kumar Dewangan & Ors., reported in 2019 (3) C.G.L.J. 318, assessed the notional income of the deceased appropriately at Rs.60,000/- per annum, and after deducting 50% towards personal and living expenses, the annual loss of income has been assessed at Rs.30,000/- per year. Applying the correct multiplier of 15, as the deceased was below 15 years of age, the total loss of dependency has been correctly calculated as Rs.4,50,000/-. Furthermore, the amounts awarded under the heads of 'loss of estate' (Rs.15,000/-), 'funeral expenses' (Rs.15,000/-), and 'loss of filial consortium' (Rs.40,000/-) are found to be just, proper, and in accordance with settled legal principles. The appellants/claimants have not come out with any cogent reasons or legal basis for enhancement of the compensation. The compensation awarded is consistent with judicial precedents and the facts of the case. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is fair and reasonable. 12. Hence, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned award. The appeal being sans merit is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen