Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.08.30 16:37:39 +0530 2025:CGHC:42921 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 362 of 2020 1 - Smt. Chandrakumari W/o Late Lalit Dhurvey Aged About 24 Years Resident Of Village Laxmanpur, Police Station And Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Somesh S/o Lalit Dhurvey Aged About 2 Years Minor , Through Legal Heirs Mother Chandrakumari W/o Late Lalit , Resident Of Village Laxmanpur, Police Station And Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Shambhu S/o Lalit Dhurvey Aged About 1 And Half Years Minor , Through Legal Heirs Mother Chandrakumari W/o Late Lalit, Resident Of Village Laxmanpur, Police Station And Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Latel S/o Late Mangtu Dhurvey Aged About 55 Years Resident Of Village Laxmanpur, Police Station And Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
5 - Smt. Lata W/o Latel Ram Dhurvey Aged About 50 Years Resident Of Village Laxmanpur, Police Station And Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Lekhram Verma S/o Kuleshwar Verma Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Vicharpur, Tahsil Sahaspur Lohara Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Vehicle), Chhattisgarh 2 2 - Jhaduram Sahu S/o Uderam Sahu Aged About 50 Years (Owner Of The Vehicle) , R/o Kurvay , Tahsil - Sahaspur Lokaya Chhattisgarh. 3 - Future General India Insurance Company Office Code - 2, Shop No. 3, 2nd Flor Marutii Business Park, Near Dhuppad Petrol Pump , Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh..(Insurer Of The Vehicle), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants For Respondents No.1 and 2 : : Shri Swapnil Keshari, Advocate on behalf of Shri Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate Shri Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 25/08/2025 1. Being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 13.12.2019 passed by Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon in Claim Case No.22 of 2019, appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of amount of compensation. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 10.1.2019 Lalit was going to his in-laws’ house on motorcycle bearing registration No.CG 08 J 9445. On way, pick up vehicle bearing registration No.CG 09 B 3201 (offending vehicle) dashed motorcycle of Lalit due to which he suffered grievous injuries over his person and later on he succumbed to injuries. 3. The claimants, who are widow, children and parents of the 3 deceased filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.25,80,000 on the ground that the deceased on the date of accident was working as a Mason and earning Rs.300 per day and also doing agricultural work on the agricultural property of his house. After sad demise of the husband of claimant No.1 and son of claimants No.4 and 5, they suffered financial loss. 4. Non-applicants No.1 and 2 submitted reply to the claim application denying the facts stated therein. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident the offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3, as such liability to satisfy the award, if any would be upon non-applicant No.3. 5. Non-applicant No.3 submitted its separate reply denying the facts stated in the claim application. It was further pleaded that the offending vehicle on the date of accident was being plied in breach of the policy conditions. Driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence. There was no valid fitness certificate and permit of the offending vehicle and has prayed for its exoneration. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of the pleadings and evidence brought on record has held that Lalit died in a motor vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1 and the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of the policy conditions as 4 it was not having a valid fitness certificate on the date of accident, exonerated the insurance company from its liability and fastened liability to satisfy the amount of compensation of Rs.8,76,400 upon non-applicants No.1 and 2, driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of compensation by assessing income of the deceased, aged about 32 years, as Rs.4,500 per month only. He contended that even if the claimants failed to prove income of the deceased then also, minimum wages of unskilled worker as was prevailing on the date of accident was more than Rs.8,000 per month and, therefore, the Claims Tribunal ought to have considered income of the deceased accordingly. It is contended that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head of loss of consortium to all the claimants, but for claimant No.1. Claimants No.2 to 5 are children and parents of the deceased. He also submits that the accident is of the year 2019. The insurance company is exonerated only on the ground that there was no valid fitness certificate and, therefore, the Claims Tribunal erred in not issuing direction to non-applicant No.3 to first pay the entire amount of compensation and thereafter to recover the same from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 5 8. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 by opposing the submission of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the entire evidence has awarded just and fair compensation which does not call for any interference. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidence came to conclusion that the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of the policy conditions and has rightly exonerated the insurance company from liability to satisfy the award. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused record of the claim case. 11. So far as submission of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants on enhancement of the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased as Rs.4,500 per month recording a finding that the claimants failed to prove income of the deceased by adducing admissible evidence. In cases where the claimants failed to prove income of the deceased by placing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, the Claims Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased keeping in mind certain factors like age of the deceased, price index, cost of living, wages prevailing on the date of accident in the area of which the deceased was 6 resident and could have also taken help of the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act prevailing on the date of accident. In the case at hand, there is no suggestive evidence to show the wages prevailing in the area of which the deceased was resident on the date of accident. Therefore, I find it appropriate to assess/determine the income of the deceased keeping in mind the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act. According to the notification issued by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act for the period from 30.9.2018 to 31.3.2019 of the area for unskilled labourer was Rs.8,140 per month and, therefore, I find it appropriate to determine the income of the deceased as Rs.8,140 per month. 12. Further, the Claims Tribunal has rightly added 40% towards future prospects of the assessed income. However, the Claims Tribunal has applied the deduction of 1/3rd. There are 5 claimants including father of the deceased. Even if the father is not to be treated to be a dependent upon the deceased then also there are 4 claimants who are widow, two children and mother of the deceased and, therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) v. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, appropriate deduction would be 1/4th instead of 1/3rd. It is ordered accordingly. 7 13. The learned Claims Tribunal has applied multiplier of 16, which is to the tune of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma case (supra). 14. The learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs.40,000 towards loss of spousal consortium to claimant No.1, Rs.15,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000 towards loss of love and affection. The amount of compensation to be awarded under other conventional heads is determined and quantified by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, wherein it is held that the claimants would be entitled for Rs.15,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000 towards loss of estate and Rs.40,000 towards loss of consortium. The award of consortium in death case is further considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, wherein it is held that the children are entitled for loss of parental consortium and parents are entitled for loss of filial consortium. 15. In case at hand, claimants No.2 and 3 are children and, therefore, they are entitled for Rs.40,000 each towards loss of parental consortium and claimants No.4 and 5 being parents are entitled for Rs.40,000 each towards loss of filial consortium. It is ordered accordingly. 16. In case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has 8 observed that there shall be increase of 10% after every three years in the compensation to be awarded under other conventional heads and, therefore, the compensation awarded under loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium shall be increased by 10%. It is ordered accordingly. 17. For the foregoing discussion, I find it appropriate to recompute the amount of compensation. Accordingly, income of the deceased is taken as Rs.8,140 per month and after adding 40% towards future prospects, total income comes to Rs.11,396. Thus, annual income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating compensation comes to Rs.1,36,752. Out of this amount, one-fourth is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and after deducting one-fourth, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,02,564. By applying multiplier of 16, as applied by the Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency, total loss of dependency would come to Rs.16,41,024. Besides this, appellant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.44,000 (40,000 + 10% of 40,000) towards spousal consortium, appellants No.2 and 3 being children are entitled for a sum of Rs.44,000 each towards parental consortium and appellants No.4 and 5, being parents of deceased, are entitled for Rs.44,000 each for loss of filial consortium. In addition to aforesaid amount, appellants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.16,500 (15,000 + 10% of 15,000) for funeral expenses and Rs.16,500 (15,000 + 10% of 9 15,000) for loss of estate. Thus, total amount of compensation for which now appellants/claimants are entitled, comes to Rs.18,94,024. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of claim application till actual payment is made. Any amount disbursed to appellants/claimants pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted from the amount of compensation as awarded above. 18. Now, I will consider the submission of learned counsel for appellants/claimants for issuance of a direction to respondent No.3/insurance company to pay and recover. 19. Undisputedly, on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured by respondent No.3. The insurance company was exonerated only on the ground that the offending vehicle was not having a valid fitness certificate on the date of accident. In case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and others, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 517 and Amrit Paul Singh and another v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558, Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered issuance of direction of pay and recover in case where the offending vehicle therein was being plied in breach of policy conditions without valid permit. 20. Taking support from the above decisions and looking to the ground for exonerating the insurance company from its 10 liability, upholding the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal exonerating the insurance company from its liability to indemnify the insured, the insurance company is directed to first pay the entire amount of compensation as awarded by this Court and thereafter to recover the amount so paid from respondent No.2/non-applicant No.2, owner of the offending vehicle in accordance with law. For recovery of the amount of compensation so paid, respondent No.3/insurance company will not be required to file a separate proceedings, but, it can recover the said amount in the same proceedings as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Nanjappan, reported in AIR 2004 SC 1631. 21. For the foregoing discussion, appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above. Gopal Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE