Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2025:CGHC:25386 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 319 of 2018 1 - Smt. Rajin Bai Sahu Wd/o Late Santosh Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Village Sendri, Police Station Koni, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kumari Lachchhan Sahu D/o Late Santosh Sahu Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rajin Bai Wd/o Late Santosh Sahu, R/o Village Village Sendri, Police Station Koni, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Kumari Durga Sahu D/o Late Santosh Sahu Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rajin Bai Wd/o Late Santosh Sahu, R/o Village Village Sendri, Police Station Koni, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Kumari Asha Sahu D/o Late Santosh Sahu Aged About 13 Years
Legal Reasoning
Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rajin Bai Wd/o Late 2 Santosh Sahu, R/o Village Village Sendri, Police Station Koni, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Omprakash Sahu S/o Late Santosh Sahu Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rajin Bai Wd/o Late Santosh Sahu, R/o Village Village Sendri, Police Station Koni, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Chandan Bai Wd/o Late Ramswaroop Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Village Sendri, Police Station Koni, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Panchram Sahu @ Panchu S/o Late Dilharan Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Lagra, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At House No.482, Deendayal Colony, Mangla, Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Bus Bearing Registration No. C.G.10-G-1126), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Maya Yadav W/o Rajesh Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. Kududand, Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Bus Bearing Registration No. C.G.10-G-1126), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office 1st Floor, Rajeev Plaza Bus Stand Bilaspur, 3 Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Bus Bearing Registration No. C.G.10-G-1126), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None. For Respondent(s) No. 3 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 18/06/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 17.11.2017 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 508/16 (“Smt. Rajin Bai Sahu & Ors. Vs. Panchram Sahu @ Panchu & Ors.”) whereby an amount of Rs. 9,81,484/- with interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded in the favour of the appellants of the deceased for their irreparable loss. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 19.07.2016 at about 7:30 p.m., deceased Santosh Kumar Sahu was walking as a pedestrian on his side of the road, when a vehicle coming from Ratanpur, driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 1, hit 4 him. As a result, Santosh Kumar Sahu sustained multiple injuries and was immediately referred to Mahadev Multi-Specialist Hospital for treatment, whereas he succumbed injuries. Due to his sudden demise, the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs. 34,00,000/-, stating that the deceased was working as a mason and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed their reply denying the involvement of their vehicle in the accident and also contended that the vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Respondent No. 3, the insurer, also filed a reply denying liability on similar grounds. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Claims Tribunal framed four issues and decided all in favour of the appellants. Therefore, the appellants/claimants preferred an application claiming a total compensation of Rs. 34,00,000/-. 3. After considering the evidence and documents brought on record, the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 5787/- per month. After assessed 25% future prospect at Rs. 1447, the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 7234/- and the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 86,808/-. After deduction of 1/4 of the income i.e. Rs. 21,702, the annual dependency was taken as Rs. 65.106/-. Considering the age of the deceased to be 5 40 years, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 14 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 9,11,484/-. Further Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 9,81,484/- in favour of the appellants of the deceased with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claimants had pleaded the income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per month, but the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased only Rs. 5787/- per month. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. 5. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent Nos. 3 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 6. None for respondents No. 1 & 2. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 6 record. 8. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 9. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 10. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month from his work, but no documentary evidence in this regard has been produced by the claimants. The learned claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,787/- per month. Therefore, in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of the deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, price index and cost of living etc. especially notification by Labour Department for minimum wages. Upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 6,200/- per month as minimum wages, at the relevant time of accident i.e. 19.07.2016, the annual income comes to Rs. 74,400/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and 7 Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 25% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 18,600/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 93,000/-. 11. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 40 years and the appellant/claimants are the wife, children and mother of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4 (Rs. 23,250/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 69,750/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 14, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 9,76,500/-. The claimants are further entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 18,000/- for funeral expenses. As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for Rs. 48,000/- each (including 10% increases in every 3 years for 2 times) (48,000 X 6= Rs. 2,88,000/-) for loss of love and affection and consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 13,00,500/- in the following manner:- 8 S.No. Heads Calculation 01 02 03 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 9,76,500/- Towards loss of estate Rs. 18,000/- Towards love and affection and Rs. 2,88,000/- consortium to all the claimants @ Rs. 48,000/- 04 Funeral Expenses Total Rs. 18,000/- Rs. 13,00,500/- 12. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 13,00,500/-. After deducting Rs. 9,81,484/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 3,19,016/-. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants i.e. wife, children and mother of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 3,19,016/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 14. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Tribunal below. The said communication be made in Hindi (Deonagri) language and the help of paralegal 9 workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, State Legal Services Authority and the DLSA of the concerned area wherein the claimants resides. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat