Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh v. 1
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2025:CGHC:36258 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1349 of 2018 1 - The United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager Anupama Square Chourasiya Building Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh. Through Authorized Signatory Divisional Manger , Divisional Office, 2nd Floor Guru Kripa Towers Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt Punita Sardul Wd/o Late Vasuram Sardul Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Bazarpara, Lamker, Post Lamker, Police Station And Chowki Bastar District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Chandershekhar S/o Late Vasuram Sardul Aged About 11 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Punita Sardul Aged 33 Years Wd/o Late Vasuram Sardul . R/o Village Bazarpara, 2 Lamker, Post Lamker, Police Station And Chowki Bastar District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. 3 - Minor Samir S/o Late Vasuram Sardul Aged About 8 Years Minor,
Legal Reasoning
7. Having considered the submissions and perused the record, this Court finds no substance in the grounds urged by the appellant/insurance company. The Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence, computed the income and awarded just compensation. No error or illegality is made out warranting interference. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. MAC No. 456/2018 9. Brief facts of the case, is that the appellants, being the legal heirs of deceased Late Wasuram, comprising his widow and son, filed the claim against the owner, driver and insurer of the offending truck bearing registration No. AP-35/V/8779, which was involved in the accident. On 04.06.2015, while the deceased was proceeding to his office on a bicycle, the said truck, driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1, came from behind and dashed against him, causing severe injuries on various parts of his body, he was admitted to the hospital but unfortunately succumbed to the injuries during treatment. The incident was reported to the concerned Police Station, where a criminal case was registered against respondent No.1 and a charge sheet was filed before the Competent Court. At the time of the accident, the deceased was about 39 years of age and employed as a 9 Panchayat Sachiv, earning Rs. 18,000/- per month, upon which his entire family was dependent. On account of his unnatural and untimely death, the claimants filed a claim petition before the learned Second Additional Claims Tribunal, Bastar, Jagdalpur (C.G.). After due service of notice, the respondents contested the claim, and the Tribunal, after framing five issues for adjudication, recording evidence of the claimants’ witnesses and considering the material on record, finally, vide award dated 30.11.2017, awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 24,76,695/-. 10. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 17,801/- per month i.e. Rs. 2,13,612/- per annum. After deduction of 1/3 of the income i.e. Rs. 71,204/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 1,42,408/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 46 to 50 years and the appellants/claimants are the wife and children of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 13 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 18,51,304/-. After adding 30% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 5,55,391/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 24,06,695/-. Further Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 24,76,695/- in favour of the wife and son of the deceased with interest @ 9% per annum, 10 from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 24,76,695/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shashikala & Ors vs. Gangalakshmamma and Another reported in (2015) SCC 150, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “16. Insofar as appropriate multiplier, the date of birth of the deceased as per driving licence was 16-6-1961. On the date of accident i.e. 14-12-2006, the deceased was aged 45 years 5 months and 28 days and the Tribunal has taken the age as 46 years. Since the deceased has completed only 45 years, the High Court has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 45 years and adopted multiplier of 14 which is the appropriate multiplier and the same is f maintained. Total loss of dependency is calculated at Rs 16,82,310 (Rs 1,20,165X14)”. 11 12. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 3 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 13. None for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 16. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 17. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 17,801/- per month which appears to be proper. Hence, accepting the income of the deceased at Rs. 17,801/- per month, the annual income comes to Rs. 2,13,612/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 30% towards future 12 prospects i.e. Rs. 64,084/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 2,77,696/-. 18. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 45 years and the appellant/claimants are the wife and children of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3 (Rs. 92,565/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 1,85,131/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased while considering the case of Shashikala (supra), after applying multiplier of 14, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 25,91,834/-. The claimants are further entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate (increase of 10% in every three years) and Rs. 18,000/- for funeral expenses (increase of 10% in every three years). As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for Rs. (40,000X3+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 1,44,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. wife and children of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 27,71,834/- in the 13 Heads following manner:- S.No 01 02 03 04 Towards loss of dependency Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every (40,000X3+10% three years +10%). Towards loss of estate along with increase of 10% in every three years. Funeral Towards Expenses along with increase of 10% in every three years. Calculation Rs. 25,91,834/- Rs. 1,44,000/- Rs. 18,000/- Rs. 18,000/- 19. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 27,71,834/-. Total Rs. 27,71,834/- After deducting Rs. 24,76,695/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 2,95,139/-. 20. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants i.e. wife and children of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 2,95,139/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat
Arguments
Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Punita Sardul Aged 33 Years Wd/o Late Vasuram Sardul . R/o Village Bazarpara, Lamker, Post Lamker, Police Station And Chowki Bastar District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ( Claimants ), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. 4 - M. Rama Swami S/o Appal Swami Aged About 60 Years Occupation Driver C/o Indupuri Narayana S/o I. Venkat Raju D.No. 28 - 66, Ward No. 20 , Main Road Salur Post Salur, District Vijaynagaram Andhra Pradesh Pin - 535591 (Driver ), District : Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh. 5 - Indupuri Narayana S/o I Venkat Raju D. No. 28 - 66, Ward No. 20, Main Road Salur Post Salur District Vijaynagaram Andhra Pradesh , Pin 535591 ( Owner ), District : Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. 3 For Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 : None. MAC No. 456 of 2018 1 - Smt. Punita Sardul Wd/o Late Wasuram Sargul Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Bazarpara Lamker Post Lamker P.S. Chowki Bastar District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. 3 2 - Chandrashekhar Sardul S/o Late Wasuram Sardul Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Appellant No.1 Smt. Punita Sardul (Mother) R/o Village Bazarpara Lamker Post Lamker P.S. Chowki Bastar District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sameer Sardul S/o Late Wasuram Sardul Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Appellant No.1 Smt. Punita Sardul (Mother) R/o Village Bazarpara Lamker Post Lamker P.S. Chowki Bastar District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - M. Ramaswami S/o M. Appal Swami Aged About 60 Years Through Indupuri Narayana S/o I. Venkat Raju D. No. 28-66 Ward No.20 Main Road Salur Post Salur District Vijiyanagram (A.P.) 535591 (Driver Of The Vehicle), District : Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh. 2 - Indupuri Narayana S/o I. Venkat Raju D.No. 28-66 Ward No.20 Main Road Salur Post Salur District Vijiyanagram (A.P.) 535591 (Owner Of The Vehicle), District : Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh. 3 - The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager Anupama Chowk Chouraisya Building Jagdalpur District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Insurer), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to : None. 4 2 For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 25/07/2025 1. Both the appeals are arising out of one accident, in which one award dated 30.11.2017 has been passed. MAC No. 1349/2018 is insurer’s appeal and MAC No. 456/2018 is claimants’ appeal against the award dated 30.11.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at place Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 157/2016. MAC No. 1349/2018 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 04.06.2016 at about 10:30 A.M., one Vasuram Sardul, aged about 39 years and employed as Panchayat Secretary at Village Panchayat Balenga, Bastar, under Janpad, was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG17 KJ6750 and proceeding towards Janpad Panchayat Bastar from his native village Lamket. On reaching near Durga Mandap, Bastar, the offending vehicle, a truck bearing registration No. MP35 V 8779, dashed against his motorcycle, causing grievous injuries. He was immediately taken to Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur, and thereafter referred to Raipur, however, he succumbed to his injuries on the way. A report of the incident 5 was lodged at the concerned Police Station, whereupon Crime No. 166/2016 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, and after completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the competent Criminal Court. The widow and two minor sons of the deceased thereafter preferred a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar, Jagdalpur, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 37,00,000/- against the owner, driver and insurance company. The appellant–Insurance Company, upon being summoned, denied liability on the ground that the offending vehicle was a Heavy Motor Vehicle (goods carriage) and it was the duty of the owner to ensure that the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence, which had not been established. It was further contended that the owner had failed to immediately report the accident to the insurance company, and since neither the owner nor the driver appeared before the Tribunal, the matter proceeded ex parte against them. The Tribunal, however, taking into account the documents on record but without properly appreciating the owner’s conduct or the issue of contributory negligence in as much as two vehicles were involved in a head- on collision granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 24,76,695/- 6 to the claimants, fastening liability upon the appellant/insurance company along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. Being dissatisfied with the award on the ground of excessive quantum, the present appeal has been preferred. During the proceedings before the Tribunal, the appellant/non-applicant No. 3 had also sought permission to enlarge its defence under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further, in compliance with the pre- condition of appeal under Section 173 of the Act, the appellant has already deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- before the concerned Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned M.A.C.T. is on the higher side and not just and proper, in as much as the Tribunal has wrongly accepted the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs. 17,801/-, whereas from the said amount a sum of Rs. 742/- stood deducted towards G.P.F., leaving the actual salary in hand at Rs. 17,059/- which alone ought to have been considered, and further the Tribunal has also erred in including the traveling allowance of Rs. 350/- which is not to be reckoned for assessing loss of dependency. He further submits that the accident occurred due to a head-on collision between two vehicles coming from opposite directions and contributory 7 negligence of the driver of the other vehicle has been erroneously ignored, while the owner of the vehicle, had he been vigilant, ought to have participated in the proceedings by producing himself and the driver so that the true manner of the mishap could have been correctly brought on record. He further submits that the testimony of AW-3, Sanjeev Jaiswal, is unreliable as his version is inconsistent with the facts narrated in the claim petition. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid submissions, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the instant appeal on the limited aspect of quantum and by effecting proper calculation modify the impugned award in the interest of justice. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 24,76,695/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. 5. None for respondent Nos. 4 & 5 i.e. driver and owner of offending vehicle. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8