SMT. RUPA BAI BHAISWARE v. PUSHPENDRA Order on Board
Case Details
1 / 2 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 447 of 2020 SMT. RUPA BAI BHAISWARE versus PUSHPENDRA Order on Board 26/03/2025 Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate for Appellants. Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate for Resp. No. 2. None appeared for Resp. No. 1, though served. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2020, application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The grounds pleaded in the application and the submission of learned counsel for appellants are opposed by learned counsel for Respondent No. 2. On due consideration of the submission of learned counsel for respective parties, I.A. No. 01/2020 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Appeal is admitted for hearing. Issue notice to respondents. PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA
Legal Reasoning
Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent no. 2. 2 / 2 Considering the facts that liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is fastened upon the Insurance Company and it is represented by the counsel before this Court, service of notice, after admission of appeal, upon Respondent No. 1/ owner of vehicle, is dispensed with. With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally at motion stage. Order passed separately. Signed and dated. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn 1 / 6 2025:CGHC:14446 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M A C No. 447 of 202 0 1. Smt. Rupa Bai Bhaisware Wd/o Late Tuman Lal Aged About 21 Years Caste Halba 2. Bishnath Bhaisware S/o Late Chamrau Ram Aged About 55 Years Caste Halba, 3. Smt. Chander Bai Wd/o Bishnath Aged About 53 Years Caste Halba All R/o Village Sangli, Police Station and Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants/ Claimants versus 1. Pushpendra S/o Satrudhan Aged About 32 Years Caste Mahar, R/o Village Sangli, Police Station And Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Owner) 2. Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Co. Ltd Registered Office Ifco Sadan C- 1, District Central New Delhi, Branch Office 19/15, First Floor, Near Abhiyan Complex, Chouhan Hotel, South Gangotri Supela, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ____________________________________________________________ --- Respondents For Appellants For Resp. No. 2 : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate : None appeared, though served. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 26/03/2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 25.01.2017 passed by Learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 56/2014, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 6 Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) in part and awarded total sum of Rs. 4,15,000/- as compensation in death case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 01.01.2013, vehicle tractor no. CG08P6129 owned by non-applicant No. 1 was being driven by deceased Tumanlal for the purpose of ploughing fields in the village, engine of the tractor got stuck in the mud and when he tried to remove it, it could not be removed. Then, on the instruction of non-applicant No. 1, deceased Tumanlal tried to remove the stucked tractor from the mud, due to which the front wheel of the tractor lifted up and turned over, due to which Tumanlal came under the engine, suffered injuries and succumbed to injuries. 3. 4. Appellants, widow and parents of deceased Tumanlal, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs. 12,50,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was about 24 years of age, was an able bodied person was doing the work of labourer from which he was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. Non-applicant 1 / Respondent No. 1-owner filed his reply and has denied the pleadings made in the application. It was further pleaded that on the date of the accident the deceased Tumanlal was not working under his employment. He is not aware about the income of the deceased. The income has been exaggerated. Non-applicant No. 1 is not liable for paying any amount of compensation. 5. Non-applicant No. 2/ Resp. No. 2-Insurance Company in its reply, apart from accepting the undisputed facts, has denied the pleadings made in the application and further stated that the driver of the tractor was an another person namely Chauhan, the deceased Tumanlal was not the driver of the tractor nor was he appointed as the driver. The deceased did not have a valid and effective license to drive the vehicle, due to which the application of the 3 / 6 appellants is liable to be dismissed against it due to violation of conditions of insurance policy. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Tumanlal died because he came under the tractor engine when the tractor overturned while pulling it out of the mud. Breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found to be proved. Tribunal holding the non-applicants jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded Rs. 4,15,000/- as total compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 7. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that the deceased husband of appellant No. 1 and son of appellants No. 2 & 3 was employed as driver by Respondent No. 1 for driving the tractor . He met with an accident when the engine of the tractor turned turtle, the driver came under the tractor and suffered grievous injuries and died due to motor accidental injuries suffered by him. Appellants-claimants have submitted an application seeking Rs. 12,50,000/- as total compensation pleading therein that the deceased while working as labourer was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month, however, his employment and the income could not be proved. The income of the deceased which is assessed by the Claims Tribunal as Rs. 3,000/- per month is on lower side for an accident which occurred on 01.01.2013 and therefore for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation even if treating the deceased to be an unskilled labourer the income be taken based on the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the minimum wages for the unskilled labourer for the period from 01.10.2012 to 31.03.2013 is fixed as Rs. 4646/- per month. He also contended that the Claims Tribunal failed to award 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. Meagre amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards 4 / 6 funeral expenses has been awarded instead of Rs. 15,000/- and not awarded compensation on other conventional heads as already held by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent 2-Insurance Company would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellants and further submits that the appellants-claimants failed to prove nature of employment as also the income of deceased, therefore, the income as assessed by the Claims Tribunal as Rs. 3,000/- per month is just and proper. He does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for appellants with respect to award of compensation on other conventional heads as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record of appeal and the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 10. Perusal of impugned award would show that the Tribunal recorded a finding that at the time of accident Tractor was not in a running condition, and therefore no licence is required. Accordingly, the issue whether there was breach of conditions of insurance policy was decided in negative against the Respondent No. 2. Tribunal held the income of deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month in absence of proof of income. The finding recorded by the Tribunal on breach of conditions of insurance policy is not put to challenge by Respondent No. 2. This appeal is by claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 11. From perusal of the notification issued by the competent authority it would show that the minimum wages for unskilled labourer for the period from 01.10.2012 to 31.03.2013 is fixed as Rs. 4,646/- per month, as the accident 5 / 6 occurred in the year 2013. Therefore, in absence of any evidence with regard to nature of work of deceased, the income fixed as per the aforementioned notification for the unskilled labourer will apply. Accordingly, the income is assessed as Rs. 4,646/- per month treating the deceased to be an unskilled labourer. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has considered that for the purpose of computing the actual amount of compensation and the sufferings by the legal representatives towards loss of dependency future prospects will also to be added. 12. In the case at hand, age of deceased is assessed by the Claims Tribunal as 22 years on the date of accident, hence, there will be addition of 40% of established income in the income of deceased for future prospects for assessing total income of deceased for purpose of calculating compensation as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 has issued guidelines for deducting amount towards personal and living expenses based on number of dependents upon deceased and held that where the dependents are three, there will be deduction of 1/3rd and where the number of dependents are 4 to 6 there will be deduction of 1/4th as the case may be. In the instant case, there are 3 dependents, hence, there will be deduction of 1/3rd of the income of deceased towards personal and living expenses. It is ordered accordingly. Appellants-claimants shall further be entitled for amount of compensation on other conventional heads as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Nanu Ram (supra).
Decision
13. For the foregoing reasons, I find it appropriate to recompute the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimants as under. 14. Income of deceased is assessed as Rs. 4646/- per month ie. Rs. 55,752/- per annum. Upon adding 40% of the income of the deceased towards future 6 / 6 prospects, yearly income of deceased on the date of accident will come to Rs. 78,053/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses, annual loss of dependency will come to Rs.52,035/-. Upon applying multiplier of 18 to the annual loss of dependency as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) as the deceased was about 22 years of age on the date of accident, total loss of dependency will come to Rs. 9,36,630/- [Rs.52035x18]. Besides the amount of compensation towards loss of dependency, appellants-claimants shall further be entitled for Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium, Rs. 40,000/- each to appellants No. 2 & 3 towards loss of filial consortium, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. 15. Now the appellants-claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of Rs. 10,86,630/- [Rs.9,36,630 + Rs.40,000+ Rs.40,000 + Rs.40,000+ Rs.15,000+ Rs.15,000] instead of Rs.4,15,000/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. Aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount paid to the appellants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. 16. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. pwn Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge