Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 365 of 2024 1 - Mamta Yadav W/o Late Punu Yadav @ Narsingh Yadav Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Sankra Motipur, P.S. Amleshwar, Durg, Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Neetu Yadav D/o Late Punu Yadav @ Narsingh Yadav Gayatri Yadav Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Appellant No. 1r/o Ward No. 14, Sankra Motipur, P.S. Amleshwar, Durg, Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - Gayatri Yadav D/o Late Punu Yadav @ Narsingh Yadav Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Appellant No. 1r/o Ward No. 14, Sankra Motipur, P.S. Amleshwar, Durg, Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Rohit Yadav S/o Late Punu Yadav @ Narsingh Yadav Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Appellant No. 1r/o Ward No. 14, Sankra Motipur, P.S. Amleshwar, Durg, Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 5 - Lata Bai Yadav W/o Benuram Yadav Aged About 51 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Sankra Motipur, P.S. Amleshwar, Durg, Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 6 - Benuram Yadav S/o Late Goverdhan Yadav Aged About 53 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Sankra Motipur, P.S. Amleshwar, Durg, Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Chunni Lal Thakur S/o Hublal Thakur, Aged About 53 Years R/o Pattora, P.S. Utai District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Branch Office No. 1, Chawla Complex, Devendra Nagar, Road, Sai Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Shaleeni Jangde on behalf of Mr. A. L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Rishi Sahu on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 2 09/09/2025 Heard on IA No. 01/2024 – application for condonation of delay. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay is hereby condoned. 3. 4. With the consent of the parties, heard finally. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) challenging the award dated 28.03.2023 passed in Claim Case No. 326/2020 by the 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur, CG. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs. 21,00,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 13,74,600/- on account of death of deceased Punu Yadav @ Narsingh Yadav in an accident that took place on 29.12.2019 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Hundai Car bearing registration No. CG CG 07 MA 2120 driven and owned by the respondent No. 1 / driver and owner and insured with the respondent No. 2 / insurance company. 5. As per the pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was engaged in milk business and was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. He was aged about 31 years and the appellants / claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased. 6. The claim application was resisted by the respondents on various grounds and denied the averments of the claim application and respondent No. 2 / insurance company pleaded that there is violations of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The learned Tribunal framed issues on the basis of the pleadings and decided the same in favour of the claimants and awarded the above stated compensation. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants / claimants submits that the income of the deceased was about 12,000/- per months whereas the learned Tribunal committed an error of taking the income of the deceased to Rs. 6,000/-. She submits that young widow, three minor children and parents were dependent upon of the deceased, therefore, at least the income ought to have been considered to Rs. 12,000/- therefore, suitable enhancement may be made. In support of above contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Smt. Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, 3 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the award. It is submitted by them that there is no documentary evidence with regard to income of the deceased nor business of the deceased therefore, the findings of the learned Tribunal appears to be based on proper appreciation does not require any interference. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record. 10. Of course there is not documentary evidence with regard to income of the deceased. This Court can safely gathered that in India majority of people worked in the unorganized sector for which they may not have necessary document to prove their income. From the evidence on record it is quite vivid that the claimants have stated that the deceased was engaged in milk business and also looking to the fact that one young widow, three minor children and parents were dependent upon the income of the deceased. Naturally in order to raise a family of 6-7 people, the income of the decease ought to have been assessed in that parameter. 11. Having thus considering the evidence available on record; age of the deceased; nature of job; minimum wages; number of dependents and date of accident, this Court can safely assess the notional income of the deceased to Rs. 10,000/-. Though the appellants/claimants have claimed Rs. 21,00,000/- as compensation but this Court can award more compensation than claimed to make the compensation just in light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Ors. reported in (2003) 2 SCC 274. In light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi (supra); Sarla Verma & Ors. (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- S. Description No. 1. Monthly income Amount 10,000/- 4 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 40% Future prospect Total Monthly Income (10000+4000) Total Yearly Income (14000x12) 4,000/- 14,000/- 1,68,000/- 1/4 Deduction for personal expenses of deceased 42,000/- Net income 1,26,000/- Multiplier of 16 applied to assess total loss of 20,16,000/- dependency 8. Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 9. 10. 10. Loss of estate Spousal consortium Parental and Filial consortium Total compensation 15,000/- 40,000/- 2,00,000/- 22,86,000/- 12. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 13,74,600/- awarded by learned tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 22,86,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 13,74,600/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 9,11,400/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of this appeal i.e. 16.02.2024. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. 13. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within 60 days. After deposit 2,00,000 (each) shall be invested as fixed deposit in a nationalized bank till attaining majority in the name of appellant Nos. 2 to 4; Rs. 1,50,000/- shall be invested as fixed deposit in a nationalized bank for a period of two years in the name of appellant No. 1; Rs. 50,000/- (each) shall be disbursed to appellant Nos. 5 and 6 and remaining amount shall be paid to appellant No. 1 through bank transaction/account payee cheque. No cost. Pawan Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge