Smt. Panch Bai v. Ratnesh Baghel

8 - Smt. Dukhiya Bai W/o Rajaram Nishad Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Akhar (Kunda) , Ward No. 14, Thana Kunda, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants/ Claimants Versus 1 - Ratnesh Baghel S/o Guhira Das Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Jhulna Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh, Hall Mukam Village Birgaon Karhi , Ward No. 14 Docterpara Birgaon , District Mungeli Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Mini Truck No. 407 C.G. 28/h./6921) (Driver) 2 - Devanand Satyapal S/o Topandas Satyapal Aged About 49 Years R/o New Bus Stand Road Mungeli, Thana Mungeli Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Mini Truck No. 407 C.G. 28/g./6921) (Owner) 3 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Rama Trade Center Old Bus Stand , In Front Of Rajiv Plaza Thana Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Mini Truck No. 407 C.G. 28 / H./ 6921) (Insurer) ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants For Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate Ms. M. Asha, Advocate : : Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

24.07.2025 (Order on Board)

#1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 31.08.2021, passed by the 3rd Addl. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Bilaspur in Claim Case No.356/2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.12,86,600/- as compensation for the death of Fagulal Nishad, who was aged about 37 years. Page No.3 of 7 IN MAC-360-2022

#2. Facts of the case, relevant for disposal of this appeal, are that on the date of occurrence i.e. 25.02.2019, while deceased- Fagulal Nishad was returning to his village on his motor-cycle and, at about 9:15 PM, the respondent No.01 herein i.e. driver of the offending vehicle- Mini Truck-407 bearing No. CG-28-H-6921 drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor-cycle of the deceased from behind, due to which, the deceased suffered injuries and died. Thereafter, the appellants, who are wife, daughter and son of the deceased respectively, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.45,00,000/- pleading therein that on the date of the accident, the deceased was 37 years of age and used to earn Rs.15,000/- PM from the work of Mason. The deceased used to maintain his family members and, after his death, his family members have no any source of income to survive. Even otherwise, the deceased was aged about 37 years on the date of accident and was a able-bodied person and, on account of his untimely death in the accident, the appellants have suffered economical and psychological difficulties.

#3. Respondents No. 1 & 2 – driver and owner of the offending vehicle submitted their reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that the accident was not caused by the aforesaid vehicle and the deceased has died on account of his own carelessness, moreover, on the date of the accident, the driver of the said vehicle was having valid Page No.4 of 7 IN MAC-360-2022 driving license as well as the said vehicle (mini truck) was duly insured with respondent No.3, therefore, the liability of compensation lies upon the Insurance Company i.e. respondent No.3.

#4. Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Insurance Company has opposed the claim application stating that the said vehicle (mini truck) was being used in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy.

#5. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Fagulal Nishad died in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid vehicle i.e.Mini Truck-407 bearing No. CG-28-H- 6921, which was driven by the respondent No.01 and owned by respondent No. 2 herein. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, and after calculating the amount of compensation, awarded Rs.12,86,600/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application.

#6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month which should be Rs.8710/- as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. It is further contended that the Claims Tribunal has erred in not awarding any compensation under the head of ‘loss of consortium (for respondents No.02 to 08)’, therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Page No.5 of 7 IN MAC-360-2022 Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced.

#7. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the appellants have failed to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence, the Tribunal is justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. The amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference.

#8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

#9. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased Fagulal Nishad to be Rs.6,000/-, however, in the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs.8710/- PM (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time) vis-a-vis Rs.1,04,520/- per annum. Moreover, a sum of Rs.44,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal to appellant No.1 as loss of spouse consortium whereas a sum of Rs.40,000/- may also be awarded as loss of consortium (appellant No.02 to 08).

#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 Sethi 1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 Page No.6 of 7 IN MAC-360-2022 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.

#1. Income

#2. Deduction Heads Compensation Compensation awarded by the awarded by this Tribunal Rs.6000 x 12 = Court Rs.8710 x 12 = Rs. 72,000/- (-) 1/5 = Rs.1,04,520/- (-) (i.e.

#3. Multiplier (x) 15 Rs.83,616/- (x) 15 = Rs. = Rs. 57,600/- Rs.20,904)=

#4. Future Prospect

#5. Loss of Estate Funeral Expenses Rs. 8,64,000/- 40% (+) 12,54,240/- (+) 40% i.e. Rs. i.e. Rs. 3,45,600 = 5,01,696/- = Rs. Rs.12,09,600/- Rs.77,000/- 17,55,936/- Rs.77,000/- Loss of spouse Consortium (for appellant No.1) Loss of Consortium (for Not assessed

#6. appellants No.02 to 7) Rs. 40,000/- X 4 =Rs.2,80,000/- Total Rs. 12,86,600/- Rs. 21,12,936/-

#11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.12,86,600/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 21,12,936/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.12,86,600/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.8,26,336/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of 2 3