15029 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M A C No. 537 of v. 1. Nadeem Khan S/o Nazir Khan R/o Ward No. 23 Mahavir Chowk, Kawardha, Police
Case Details
1 / 7 2025:CGHC:15029 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M A C No. 537 of 202 0 1. Shatruhan Sahu S/o Late Parasram Sahu, Aged About 57 Years. 2. Khubiram S/o Shatruhan Sahu, Aged About 24 Years Both are R/o Kathiya, Ward No. 3, Police Station And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. Present Address Bazarpara Birgaon, Police Station Urla, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants/ Claimants versus 1. Nadeem Khan S/o Nazir Khan R/o Ward No. 23 Mahavir Chowk, Kawardha, Police Station Kawardha, District Kawardha Chhattisgarh. (Driver of Vehicle No. C.G. 07/MA/9159, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh) 2. Motidas, S/o Garibdas, Village Chikhla, Police Station Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. (Owner of Vehicle No. C.G. 07/MA/9159, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh) 3. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., 4th Floor, Maruti Height Mahoba Bazar, Raipur, Police Station Aamanaka, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of Vehicle No. C.G. 07/MA/9159, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh) ____________________________________________________________
Legal Reasoning
For Appellants For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Utsav Mahishwar, Advocate : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate --- Respondents Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 28/03/2025 PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 30.01.2020 passed by Learned Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 54/2019, whereby learned 2 / 7 Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) in part and awarded total sum of Rs. 5,54,000/- as compensation in death case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 24.08.2018 at about 4.30 p.m., appellant No. 1 Shatrughan Sahu was riding his bicycle with his wife Draupati Sahu sitting behind him. When they reached near village Kathia, police station-Bemetara, non-applicant No. 1/ driver of pickup vehicle no. CG 07-MA-9159 (“offending vehicle”), while driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently hit the bicycle, as a result of which Draupati Sahu, who was sitting behind the bicycle, suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. Appellant no. 1 Shatrughan Sahu also suffered serious injuries, who was admitted to Heritage Hospital, Raipur. In connection with the above accident, a crime number 440/2018 for alleged offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of the IPC was registered at police station Bemetara on 24.08.2018. 3. Appellants, husband and the child of deceased, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking Rs. 13,16,000/- as compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was about 44 years of age, was an able bodied woman, was the earning member of her family. At the time of the accident, the deceased used to work in a confectionery shop, from which she used to earn Rs. 9,000/- per month. 4. Non-applicant 1 & 2/ Respondent No. 1 & 2- driver and owner filed their joint reply, denying the pleadings made in the claim application. It was further denied that the driver of the offending vehicle caused the accident by driving fast and negligently and that Draupati Sahu died as a result of the injuries sustained in that accident and that Shatrughan Sahu suffered serious injuries who was admitted to the hospital for treatment. It is further stated that at the time of the accident, Shatrughan Sahu himself was riding his bicycle 3 / 7 carelessly in the wrong direction, he himself was responsible for the accident. Similarly, it has been denied that at the time of the accident, Draupati Sahu was a 44-year-old healthy woman and earning member of her family and was earning a monthly income of Rs. 9,000/- by working in a sweet shop. It is their statement that the appellants have made exaggerated claim to gain financial benefits based on false and fabricated grounds. At the time of the said accident, the driver/non-applicant No. 1 had a valid and effective driving license, having all the documents of the vehicle and the vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3. If the compensation amount is determined, then non-applicant number-3 insurance company is responsible for its payment and prayed for dismissal of claim filed against them. 5. Non-applicant No. 3/ Resp. No. 3-Insurance Company in its reply, apart from accepting the undisputed facts, has denied the pleadings made in the application and further denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the non-applicant No. 1/ driver of the offending vehicle and that Draupati Sahu died as a result of the accident. It is further stated that the accident occurred due to negligent driving by the appellant Shatrughan Sahu. Similarly, it is also stated that the appellants are not dependents of the deceased Draupati Sahu, due to which they are not entitled to compensation. At the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of conditions of Insurance Policy as the non- applicant No. 1 was driving the offending vehicle without a valid and effective driving license and the vehicle did not have fitness and permit at the time of accident, hence the insurance company is not responsible to satisfy compensation and prayed that the claim application filed against it be dismissed. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Draupati Sahu 4 / 7 died because of injuries suffered due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant 1. Breach of conditions of the insurance policy and contributory negligence was not found to be proved. Tribunal holding the non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation amount, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded Rs. 5,54,000/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 7. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre sum of compensation of Rs. 5,54,000/-. He contended that learned Claims Tribunal has not considered the occupation and income of deceased pleaded and stated by the appellants-claimants and has erroneously taken income as Rs. 5,000/- per month. He contended that the deceased was working in a confectionery shop for earning her livelihood and her family, therefore, the income as pleaded in the application ought to have been taken for calculating amount of compensation. Even if the income of deceased is to be taken on notional basis treating her to be unskilled labourer, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken the wages as prevailing on the date of accident. Deceased held to be aged about 55 years as per post mortem report on the date of accident, the learned Tribunal has applied 10% of the future prospects which in terms of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 is correct and further the Tribunal has applied deduction of 1/3 of loss of dependency and multiplier of 11 which is also rightly applied in view of the decision in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. It is next contended that learned Claims Tribunal has erroneously not awarded any amount towards parental consortium to appellant No. 2, to the child, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance 5 / 7 Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent 3-Insurance Company would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellants and further submits that the appellants failed to prove the occupation and the income of deceased by bringing cogent and reliable piece of evidence, hence, the Claims Tribunal has rightly taken the income on notional basis treating the deceased to be labourer. The amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference of this Court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 10. Sofar as, the submission of learned counsel for the appellants with regard to assessment of income of the deceased in concerned, accident was of 24.04.2018, occupation of deceased is pleaded as worker in a confectionery shop. True it is that the appellants-claimants failed to produce any admissible piece of evidence to prove income of deceased. But for assessing income on notional basis, factors like date of accident, age of deceased, wage structure, price index etc. are to be taken into consideration. In the said facts of the case, the occupation of deceased can only be treated as a labourer for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. Therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to take the amount of wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the period 01.10.2017 to 31.03.2018, as the accident occurred in the year 2018. The monthly wages fixed by the competent authority for Class-A city is Rs. 8320/- per month. Upon taking into consideration the aforementioned factors, particularly the date of accident, age of deceased and nature of occupation to be labourer, I find it appropriate to assess income of deceased as Rs. 8320/- per month 6 / 7 instead of Rs. 5000/- per month, as the deceased was residing and working in industrial city, Raipur, C.G. It is ordered accordingly. 11. In the case at hand, deceased was 55 years of age on the date of accident as held by Tribunal, hence, there will be addition of 10% of established income in the income of deceased 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 (supra) has issued guidelines for deducting personal and living expenses based on number of dependents upon deceased and held that where the dependents are two to 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 2 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
12. For the foregoing reasons, I find it appropriate to recompute the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimants as under. 13. Income of deceased is assessed as Rs. 8,320/- per month ie. Rs. 99,840/- per annum. Upon adding 10% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects, yearly income of deceased on the date of accident will come to Rs. 1,09,824/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses, annual loss of dependency will come to Rs.73,216/-. As the deceased held to be 55 years of age on the date of accident on the basis of post mortem report, multiplier of 11 would be applied for the age group between 51 to 55 years to the annual loss of dependency as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Upon applying multiplier 7 / 7 of 11, total loss of dependency will come to Rs. 8,05,376/- [Rs.73,216x11]. 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/- towards loss of parental consortium to appellant No. 2, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. 14. Now the appellants-claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of Rs. 9,15,376/- [Rs. 8,05,376 + Rs.40,000 + Rs.40,000 + Rs.15,000 + Rs.15,000] instead of Rs. 5,54,000/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. Aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% 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. 15. 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