Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:45105 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 154 of 2021 1 - Narayan Yadav S/o Late Tulsi Yadav Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Vimlapur P. S. Trikunda, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Shanti Yadav W/o Narayan Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Vimlapur P. S. Trikunda, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Jayanti Devi W/o Late Rakesh Kumar Yadav Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Vimlapur P. S. Trikunda, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 4 - Babu S/o Late Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Applicant No. 4 Is Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother, Appellant No. 03, R/o Village Vimlapur P. S. Trikunda, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Manjur Hussan S/o Mohd. Mumtaj Aged About 36 Years Constable No. 1198 R/o Police Station Balrampur District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 2 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Home Atalnagar New Raipur Chhattisgarh District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents {Cause title taken from Case Information System} For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Aakansha Viswakarma, Advocate holding brief For Res. No. 1 For Res. No. 2 : Mr. A. K. Yadav, Advocate : Mr. Triveni Shankar Sahu, Panel Lawyer of Mr. A. N. Pandey, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 03/09/2025 1. This is claimants’ appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'MV Act, 1988') for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Balrampur Place- Ramanujganj (C.G.) (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MACT case No. 63/2018 vide award dated 29th January, 2021 2. A claim application under Section 166 of the MV Act has been filed by the claimants / appellants herein claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.2,64,00,000/- on account of death of Rakesh Kumar Yadav & Upendra Kumar Yadav in an unfortunate road accident that occurred on 03.07.2018 by rash and negligent driving of Police Vehicle (offending vehicle) bearing registration No.CG-03-5613 by respondent No.1/driver, which was owned by respondent No. 2 /State. As per pleading made in the claim application, both the deceased were real brothers and they were travelling in a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 15 CZ 7756, which was dashed by offending vehicle from behind, resulting into severe injuries to them and ultimately they succumbed to those injuries. As per further pleading made in the claim application, deceased Rakesh Kumar Yadav was involved in agricultural work and also a vegetable vendor, from which, he used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month whereas deceased Upendra Kumar Yadav was a student and also working as Motorcycle Mechanic, from which, he used to earn Rs. 30,000/- per month. Both the deceased were stated to be 25 years & 20 years, respectively at the time of accident and, therefore, the above stated amount of compensation was claimed 3 by the claimants. 3. It is mentionable here that appellants No. 1 & 2 are unfortunate parents both the deceased i.e. Rakesh Kumar Yadav & Upendra Kumar Dadav and appellants No. 3 & 4 are unfortunate wife & minor child of deceased Rakesh Kumar Yadav. 4. The claim application were resisted by the respondents on various grounds. 5. On the basis of above broad features of the case, learned Claims Tribunal framed as many as three issues, decided the same in favour of the claimants and after assessing notional income of both the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month & Rs.72,000/- per annum, awarded compensation of Rs.10,38,400/- in favour of the appellants/claimants on account of death of deceased Rakesh Kumar Yadav (married) whereas awarded a sum of Rs. 7,95,200/- in favour of appellants No. 1 & 2/parents only on account of death of Upendra Kumar Yadav. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is shockingly on lower side, as income of both the deceased person have not been assessed properly, future prospect has wrongly been added and amount awarded in other admissible heads are required to be suitably enhanced. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and 2 while supporting the impugned award would submit that in absence of any oral & documentary evidence available on record, finding of the Claims Tribunal with regard to income of the deceased and assessment of the 4 total amount compensation appears to be just & proper, which does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records. 9. This Court would first deal with the quantum of the compensation which could be awarded to the appellants on account of death of deceased persons namely Rakesh Kumar Yadav & Upendra Kumar Yadav. 10.According to the pleadings, on the date of incident, deceased Rakesh Kumar Yadav was engaged in agricultural work and also a vegetable vendor. The Tribunal after assessing monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6000/- per month and his age as 30 years, proceeded to award aforesaid amount of compensation to the claimants/dependent of the deceased. In opinion of this Court, income of the deceased, as assessed by the Claims Tribunal, appears to be on lower side as the date of accident is 03.07.2018, he was raising his wife and minor son also considering the evidence available on record, minimum wages prevailing at that time, number of dependents upon the deceased, which also included the parents, looking to overall circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to consider income of the deceased as Rs. 8,500/- per month i.e. Rs. 1,02,000/- per annum. 11.In view of above and taking guidance from the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and ors, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram 5 and ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court hereby computes the compensation in the following manner - 1 2 3 4 5. 6. 7. Monthly income Rs.8,500- Future prospects 40% Rs. 11,900/- (8500 + 3,400) Yearly income (11,900x12) Rs.1,42,800/- 1/4th deduction for Rs.1,07,100/- personal expenses (1,42,800-35,700/-) Multiplier of 17 (1,07,200 x 17) Rs.18,20,700/- Loss of consortium to wife+ funeral expenses+ loss of Estate +Rs.70,000/- Parental and Filial +Rs.1,20,000/- Consortium (Rs. 40,000/- each to appellants No.2 to 4) TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.20,10,700/- 12. Similarly, according to the pleadings, on the date of incident, another deceased Upendra Kumar Yadav (unmarried) was student and used to earn Rs. 30,000/- per month by working as Motorcycle Mechanic. The Tribunal after assessing monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6000/- per month and his age as 20 years proceeded to award aforesaid amount of compensation. In the opinion of this Court, income of the deceased, as assessed by the Claims Tribunal, appears to be on lower side looking to the fact that on the date of accident i.e. 6 03.07.2018, prevailing minimum wages and number of dependents upon the deceased i.e. his parents, considering to overall circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to consider income of the deceased as Rs. 8,500/- per month i.e. Rs. 1,02,000/- per annum. 13.In view of above and taking guidance from the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and ors, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court hereby computes the compensation in the following manner - 1 2 3 4 5. 6. 7. Monthly income Rs.8,500- Future prospects 40% Rs. 11,900/- (8500 + 3,400) Yearly income (11,900x12) Rs.1,42,800/- 1/2nd deduction for Rs.71,400/- personal expenses (Rs. 1,42,800- Rs. 71400/-) Multiplier of 18 (71,400 x 18), as applied by the Claims Tribunal. Consolidated sum for funeral expenses & loss of estate Rs.12,85,200/- +Rs.30,000/- Filial Consortium (Rs. +Rs.80,000/- 40,000/- each to appellants No. 1 & 2) 7 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.13,95,200/- 14.For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 10,38,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in case of Rakesh Kumar Yadav is enhanced to Rs.20,10,700./-. The appellants are entitled for a further sum of Rs. 9,72,300/- over and above the amount of Rs. 10,68,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. Whereas, the compensation of Rs. 7,95,200 awarded by the Tribunal in case of Upendra Kumar Yadav is enhanced to Rs.13,95,200/-. The appellants No. 1 & 2 are entitled for a further sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- over and above the amount of Rs. 13,95,200/- awarded by the Tribunal. 15.The above enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 9,72,300./- and Rs.6,00,000/-, respectively shall carry interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of filing of appeal i.e. 04.03.2021 till its actual payment. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the award shall remain intact. The award stands modified to the above extent. 16.The respondent No. 2/State is granted 60 days' time to deposit enhanced amount of compensation along with interest before the concerned Tribunal. After depositing the enhanced amount of compensation by respondent No.2/State, the learned Claims Tribunal shall pass appropriate order for apportionment, investment and disbursement. Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.09.22 17:05:55 +0530