1 - Kanak Das S/o Badaiek Das, Aged About 51 Years Occupation Agriculture.............Claimant 2 v. 1 - Sariful Ansari S/o Mohd. Yenul Ansari Aged About 40 Years Occupation Driver
Case Details
-1- 2025:CGHC:28387 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 578 of 2020 1 - Kanak Das S/o Badaiek Das, Aged About 51 Years Occupation Agriculture.............Claimant 2 - Smt. Shanti Das D/o Kanak Das Aged About 27 Years Occupation House Work.............Claimant, Both are R/o Village Jamdih Post Urdara Police Station And Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Sariful Ansari S/o Mohd. Yenul Ansari Aged About 40 Years Occupation Driver R/o Village Dasouti Police Station Amba District Orangabad (Bihar) (Driver Of Truck No. BR26H5870) 2 - Abhay Narayan S/o Ripusudan Tiwari Aged About 29 Years Occupation Owner R/o Krishnanagar Orangabad P.S. And District Orangabad (Bihar) (Owner Of Truck No. BR26H5870) 3 - The Branch Manager, Chola Mandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Ward No. 25 (Guru Govind Singh Ward) 2nd Floor Simaran Tower Near L.I.C. Building Pandari Road Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Truck No. BR26H5870) 4 - Mujahid Khan S/o Mohd. Jakir Khan Aged About 24 Years Occupation Driver R/o Village Jamdih (Bagicha Para) Post Urdara Police Station And Tahsil Lundra District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Bolero Camper Vehicle No. CG15CZ6288) Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.07.11 10:40:43 +0530 5 - Sanjay Gupta S/o Rajkumar Gupta Aged About 47 Years Occupation Teacher R/o Village Jamdih (School Para) Post Urdara Police Station And Tahsil Lundra District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Bolero Camper Vehicle No. CG15CZ6288) ... Respondent(s) -2- ________________________________________________________
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Aakancha Vishwakarma, Advocate For Appellant (s) on behalf of Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Prashant Sahu, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 27/06/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally. 2. This is the claimants’ appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District-Sarguja (CG) vide award dated 5th December 2019 passed in Motor Accidents Claim Case No.139 of 2017. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur (CG) pleading therein that on 01-05-2017, Smt. Gangotri Bai had gone to Rajpur Water Resources Department office for some important work along with her sister-in-law Dulari Bai in a Bolero camper vehicle number CG-15-CZ-6288. After completing the work, Gangotri Bai along with others was returning home in the aforesaid vehicle, at that time, on Ambikapur-Ramanujganj main road, at about 3:00 pm in the noon, the driver (non-applicant No. 1) of truck no. BR-26-H-5870, driving the -3- truck rashly and negligently, dashed Bolero Camper vehicle no. CG- 15-CZ-6288 driven by non-applicant No.4 from the front and caused an accident, due to which Gangotri Bai sitting in the Bolero vehicle got seriously injured. After getting her initial treatment done at the Primary Health Center, Gangotri Bai was taken to the District Hospital Ambikapur, where Gangotri Bai died during treatment. At the time of the accident, deceased Gangotri Bai was 45 years old and was earning Rs.6000/- per month by doing agriculture and labour work. Due to untimely death of the deceased, applicants have been deprived of the future income from the deceased. The applicants have prayed for grant of total compensation of Rs. 11,76,000/- under various heads from the non-applicants. 4. Non applicants No. 1 & 2 by filing their written statement opposed the claim of the claimants and have stated that on the date of the accident, non-applicant No. 1 was not driving any vehicle, but he has been falsely implicated out of malice. No accident has been caused by the vehicle owned by non-applicant No. 2. The vehicle owned by non- applicant No. 2 is insured with non-applicant No. 3. Non-applicant No.1 had a valid license to drive the said vehicle, the vehicle was driven under the terms of insurance policy. Therefore, non-applicants No. 1 & 2 would not be liable to pay any amount of compensation. 5. Non-applicant No.3 by filing its written statement stated that non- applicant No.1 did not have a valid and effective driver's license to drive a goods carrier truck. The alleged accident occurred due to the negligent driving by the driver of the light goods carrier vehicle pickup No.CG-15-CZ-6288. In such a situation, the insurance company of the -4- pickup vehicle is a necessary party in the case. The alleged accident took place on 01.05.2017, but its report was conspiratorially made on 04.05.2017 with the intention of implicating the insured vehicle only, whereas no accident of any kind has occurred with the offending vehicle. Therefore, claim against non-applicant No.3 is not maintainable. 6. Non-applicant No.4 (driver of Bolero Camper vehicle number CG-15- CZ-6288) opposing the pleadings made in the claim application stated that on the date of the accident, non-applicant No.4 had a valid and effective driving license. The driver of truck number BR-26-H-5870 i.e. non-applicant No.1, while driving carelessly, dashed the Bolero Camper vehicle number CG-15-CZ-6288. In view of all these circumstances, non-applicant No.4 is not liable to pay any amount of compensation, but non-applicants No. 1, 2 and 3 are responsible. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which Gangotri Bai suffered grievous injuries and died during her treatment in the hospital. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found proved, non-applicants were held liable to pay the amount of compensation. Assessing income of the appellant/claimant as Rs.4500/- per month on notional basis, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.5,42,500/ -. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that amount of -5- compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is much less than what the claimants are entitled for. Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed income of deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month overlooking the income as pleaded in the claim application of Rs.6,000/- per month and the date of accident. She next contended that learned Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of compensation under other conventional heads. Though learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- to claimant No.1/husband of deceased towards loss of spousal consortium, no amount of compensation under head loss of consortium has been awarded to applicant No.2/daughter of deceased. She submits that according to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130, children are also entitled for loss of parental consortium. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance company vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that amount of compensation awarded is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused records of claim case. 11. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants with regard to assessment of income as Rs.4,500/- per month by the Tribunal is concerned, date of accident is 01.05.2017. In the claim application, claimants have pleaded the occupation of deceased as Laborer and his income to be Rs.6,000/- -6- per month. True it is that claimants have failed to prove income of deceased by placing admissible piece of evidence, however, in absence of admissible piece of evidence, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of deceased considering the other factors like cost of living, price index, wage rates structure and could have also considered minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act for ‘unskilled labourer’ prevailing on the date of accident. 12. For the purpose of assessing income of deceased on notional basis in absence of any specific evidence, this Court finds it appropriate to take help of the Notification issued by the Commissioner-cum- Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. In the Notification, monthly income for ‘unskilled labourer’, has been fixed as Rs.7930/- per month. Hence, income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.7930/- per month instead of Rs.4500/- per month as held by learned Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. 13. Learned Tribunal, looking the age of the deceased on the date of accident to be 45 years, has rightly added 25% of the assessed income towards loss of future prospects. Looking to the number of dependent, learned Tribunal has made deduction of ½ towards personal and living expenses of deceased. Claimant No.2 being married daughter and not dependent upon deceased. As one of the claimant is spouse, appropriate deduction would be 1/3. 14. Learned Claims Tribunal looking to the age of deceased as 45 years, has correctly applied multiplier of 14. Tribunal has further correctly -7- awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’. Learned Claims Tribunal as awarded Rs.40,000/- to appellant/claimant No.1 only towards ‘loss of spousal consortium’. There are two claimants who are stated to be husband and daughter of deceased. In view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 where the claimants are spouse and children of deceased, they are entitled for compensation under the head loss of consortium i.e. ‘spousal consortium’ and ‘loss of parental consortium’ of Rs.40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. 15. For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. (A) Loss of Income/dependency : Rs. 11,10,200 7930 x 12 = 95160 (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 25% (95160 x 25% =23790) 95160+ 23790 = 1,18,950 (C) Deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses (1,18,950 x 1/3 =39650) 1,18,950- 39650 = 79300 (D) Multiplier of 14 79300 x 14 = 11,10,200 2. Funeral Expenses 3. Loss of Estate : : (+) Rs. 15,000 (+) Rs. 15,000 4. Loss of spousal consortium to : (+) Rs. 40,000 -8- appellant/claimant No.1 5. Loss of Parental Consortium of Rs.40,000/- to appellant/ claimant No.2 : (+) Rs. 40,000 Total compensation : Rs. 12,20,200 16. Now the appellants/claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs. 12,20,200/- instead of Rs.5,42,500/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 17. Aforementioned total amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.
Decision
18. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen