Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh v. 1. Rojan Bi W/o Gafaruddin Aged About 48 Years R/o Jute Mill, Jhopdipara, Ward
Case Details
Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.09.24 18:29:57 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:48782 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 561 of 2020 Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Raipur Road, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh .............(Insurer Of Offending Truck Bearing No. C. G. 10-C5323), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1. Rojan Bi W/o Gafaruddin Aged About 48 Years R/o Jute Mill, Jhopdipara, Ward No. 35, Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ..........Claimants, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Ajharuddin S/o Gafaruddin Aged About 28 Years R/o Jute Mill, Jhopdipara, Ward No. 35, Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ..........Claimants, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3. Afsana D/o Gafruddin Aged About 25 Years R/o Jute Mill, Jhopdipara, Ward No. 35, Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ..........Claimants, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4. Ruksana D/o Gafaruddin Aged About 27 Years R/o Jute Mill, Jhopdipara, Ward No. 35, Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ..........Claimants, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5. Nashruddin S/o Gafaruddin Aged About 21 Years R/o Jute Mill, Jhopdipara, Ward No. 35, Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ..........Claimants, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6. Nemchand Yadav S/o Shyamlal Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Basaiha, Police Station Rajendragram, District Anuppur M. P. Presently Residing Vishnu Chowk Tifra Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ...........(Driver Of Offending Truck Bearing No. C. G. 10 C 5323) Non Applicant No. 01, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 7. Karan Vishwakarma S/o Ashok Vishwakarma Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Basaiha, Police Station Rajendragram, District Anuppur M. P. Presently Residing Vishnu Chowk Tifra Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ...........(Registered Owner Of Offending Truck Bearing No. C. G. 10 C 5323) Non Applicant No. 02, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of For Respondents No. 1 to 5 For Respondents No. 6 and 7 Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate : None, though served WITH MAC No. 520 of 2020 1. Rozan Bi Wd/o Late Gaffruddin Aged About 48 Years R/o Jutmil Jhopadipara, Ward No. 35 Raigarh District (Revenue And Civil) Raigarh Chhattisgarh..............Applicant, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Azharuddin S/o Late Gaffruddin, Aged About 28 Years R/o Jutmil Jhopadipara, Ward No. 35 Raigarh District (Revenue And Civil) Raigarh Chhattisgarh..............Applicant, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3. Afsana D/o Late Gaffruddin Aged About 25 Years R/o Jutmil Jhopadipara, Ward No. 35 Raigarh District (Revenue And Civil) Raigarh Chhattisgarh..............Applicant, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4. Ruksana D/o Late Gaffruddin Aged About 27 Years R/o Jutmil Jhopadipara, Ward No. 35 Raigarh District (Revenue And Civil) Raigarh Chhattisgarh..............Applicant, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5. Nasharuddin S/o Late Gaffruddin Aged About 21 Years R/o Jutmil Jhopadipara, Ward No. 35 Raigarh District (Revenue And Civil) Raigarh Chhattisgarh..............Applicant, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus 3 1. Nemchand Yadav S/o Shyamlal Yadav, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Basaiha, Police Station Rajendragram, District Anuppur (Madhya Pradesh) At Present R/o Vishnu Chowk Tifra Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Truck Bearing Vehicle No. C.G.10 C/5323).............Non-Applicant, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Karan Vishwakarma S/o Ashok Vishwakarma, Aged About 24 Years R/o Vishnu Chowk Tifra Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G.10 Of Chhattisgarh. C/5323).............Non-Applicant, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Vehicle No. (Owner 3. Branch Manager, Insurance Company The New India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Raipur Road, Balodabazar District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Vehicle Bearing Vehicle No. C.G.10 C/5323).............Non-Applicant, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 and 2 For Respondent No. 3 : None, though served : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 23/09/2025 1) These appeals arise out of the award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 112/2018 [parties being Rojan Bi & Ors. Versus Nemchand Yadav & Ors.] dated 20.11.2019 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 7,72,000/- with interest @ 9% on account of death of Gafaruddin. 2) Facts of the present cases as per claim application are that on 14.03.2018 around 02:30 p.m., the deceased Gafaruddin was going along with Manbodh Kasre, Arbaz Khan and Lekhram as 4 gratuitous passenger in the pick-up vehicle bearing registration No. CG-22-C-0174, which was being driven by Santosh Dewangan. The pick up vehicle was dashed by the offending truck bearing registration No. CG-10-C-5323. In the accident, Gafaruddin, Manbodh Kasre, Arbaz Khan and Santosh Dewangan died and Lekhram sustained grievous injuries. 3) Claimants who are the widow and children of deceased Gafaruddin filed Claim Case No. 112/2018 under the provisions of 166 of the MV Act, 1988 claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 21,50,000/- on the ground that deceased was aged about 50 years at the time of accident and earning Rs. 15,000/- working as cobbler. Insurance Company filed its reply; learned Tribunal framed issues and passed an award to the tune of Rs. 7,72,000/-. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the age of deceased was more than 50 years at the time of accident and same has been admitted by Azharuddin S/o Late Gaffruddin in evidence, who admitted that at the time of accident, age of his father was more than 50 years and he had availed certain benefits of government schemes showing his age more than 50 years. She further submits that AADHAR Card of deceased has also been placed on record along with application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC wherein the date of birth of deceased is mentioned as 01.01.1962 and thus, on the date of accident, he was about aged about 56 years. She contends that 5 that learned Tribunal only on the basis of post mortem report, considered the age of deceased to be 50 years and applied incorrect multiplier. She prays to set aside the award impugned. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimants opposes. He submits that AADHAR Card is not a conclusive proof of age of a person and in the post mortem report, age of deceased has been mentioned as 50 years. He further submits that Insurance Company failed to adduce any documentary evidence to contradict the age mentioned in the post mortem report and learned Tribunal rightly considered the same and applied correct multiplier. He contends that the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company deserves to be dismissed. He argues that learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month whereas according to the Minimum Wages Matrix, minimum wages payable to a semi-skilled labour in March, 2018 was Rs. 8,840/- per month, thus learned Tribunal has assessed the notional income of deceased on lower side. He further argues that learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount for Future Prospect and awarded a meager sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium whereas there are five claimants. He prays to enhance the compensation accordingly. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7) Admittedly, in the claim application, the claimants have mentioned 6 the age of deceased as 50 years. In the post mortem report [Exhibit P/14], age of deceased is mentioned as 50 years. Insurance Company has placed the AADHAR Card of deceased which reflects his date of birth as 01.01.1962. In evidence, Azharuddin, who is the son of deceased has admitted that at the time of accident, age of deceased was more than 50 years. In cross-examination, this witness has further admitted that deceased had availed the benefits of government schemes showing his age more than 50 years, thus it can be presumed that on the date of accident, age of deceased was more than 50 years. Although, AADHAR Card is not a conclusive proof of age but there is admission on the part of son of deceased, therefore this Court is of view that the age of deceased may be considered between 51 to 55 years and correct multiplier would be 11. 8) Now, coming to the appeal preferred by the claimants for enhancement of award. From perusal of award, it appears that learned Tribunal has assessed the notional income of deceased as Rs. 6,000 per month whereas he was a cobbler and as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of a semi-skilled labour in March, 2018 was Rs. 8,840/- and learned Tribunal ought to have considered that figure. Further, learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards future prospects to the claimants whereas considering the age of deceased to be 7 51 to 55 years, claimants would be entitled to receive 10% additional amount for future prospects. Also, learned tribunal has awarded only Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium whereas claimants are widow and four children of deceased. 9) Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence to prove that the children of deceased are employed anywhere or married, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, four children are also entitled to receive an additional amount of Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of consortium. 10) Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi1, Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2. and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors.3, this Court is computing the compensation as below: Sr. No . Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this COurt 1. Annual Income Rs. 6,000 x 12 = Rs. 72,000/- Rs. 8,840 x 12 = Rs. 1,06,080/- 2. Annual Income adding Future Prospect @ 10% NIL Rs.1,06,080+Rs.10,608 = Rs. 1,16,688/- [@ 10 %]