High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.02 16:51:45 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:36628 NAFR MAC No. 458 of 2018 1 - Smt. Foolkumari Wd/o Late Manmohan Lal Ratre Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Lohrsi (Son), Tahsil And Police Station Masturi, District (Revenue And Civil) Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kumari Shreya D/o Late Manmohan Lal Ratre Aged About 10 Years Minor Through The Mother (Natural Guardian) Appellant No.01 Smt. Foolkumari Wd/o Late Manmohan Lal Ratre, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Lohrsi (Son), Tahsil And Police Station Masturi, District (Revenue And Civil) Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Kumari Sneha D/o Late Manmohan Lal Ratre Aged About 7 Years Minor Through The Mother (Natural Guardian) Appellant No.01 Smt. Foolkumari Wd/o Late Manmohan Lal Ratre, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Lohrsi (Son), Tahsil And Police Station Masturi, District (Revenue And Civil) Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Shreyansh S/o Late Manmohan Lal Ratre Aged About 5 Years Minor
Legal Reasoning
Through The Mother (Natural Guardian) Appellant No.01 Smt. Foolkumari Wd/o Late Manmohan Lal Ratre, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Lohrsi (Son), Tahsil And Police Station Masturi, District (Revenue And Civil) Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Bhagwat Prasad S/o Late Kanhaiyalal Ratre Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Lohrsi (Son), Tahsil And Police Station Masturi, District (Revenue And Civil) Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Santopi W/o Bhagwat Prasad Ratre Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Lohrsi (Son), Tahsil And Police Station Masturi, District (Revenue And Civil) Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants 2 versus 1 - Radheshyam Sahu S/o Devnarayan Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Village And Post Hasuwa, Police Station Gidhauri, District (Revenue And Civil) Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Motor Cycle No. C.G.-11 C.K./8661) 2 - Sudama Sahu S/o Narayan Sahu R/o Village Kikirda, Tahsil And Police Station Bamhnideeh, District (Revenue And Civil) Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Motor Cycle No. C.G.-11 C.K./8661) 3 - Branch Office H.D.F.C. Agro General Insurance Company Limited Branch Office- 3rd Floor, Chanwala Complex, Devendra Nagar, Sainagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District (Revenue And Civil) Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Motor Cycle No. C.G.-11 C.K./8661) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Govind Dewangan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : None For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 28.07.2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 14.12.2017 passed by the learned 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.425/2016 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimants. 2. Brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that, on 08.10.2015, Manmohan Lal Ratre (since deceased) along with his friend 3 Abhishek was going towards Darri Talab at village Loharsi and after returning, when they reached near Boerda turning at about 7.00 PM, one motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-11/CK/8661 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’) driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, dashed Manmohan Lal Ratre, due to which he sustained grievous injuries over his person. He was taken to the Primary Health Centre, Pamgarh, from where he was referred to KIMS Hospital, Bilaspur. Thereafter, he was referred to Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur and later to the Mekahara Hospital, Raipur, where he died on 02.12.2015. 3. The claimants being wife, children, father and mother of deceased Bhop Singh have filed a claim petition claiming Rs.32,50,000/- as compensation under various heads. 4. Respondents No.1 and 2/non-applicants No. 1 and 2 have filed their written statement before the learned Claims Tribunal and pleaded that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company, as such, the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation would be upon the Insurance Company. 5. The respondent No.3 filed its written statement in which it has denied the contents of the petition and further stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence, as such there was violation of breach of policy 4 conditions and Insurance Company was not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 6. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, Claims Tribunal held that the deceased was aged about 32 years on the date of accident and earning Rs.5,000/- per month, deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses and after applying the multiplier of 16, awarded an amount of Rs.7,20,000/- towards loss of dependecy. Learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs.70,000/- towards other conventional heads and Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses, as such awarded total compensation of Rs.9,90,000/- with interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization and fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the driver, owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. He further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in law in not awarding any amount towards future prospects and awarded meagre amount towards loss of consortium. It has been contended that learned Claims Tribunal has failed to award the proper amount of compensation under the various heads and therefore, the award deserves to be altered in order to fulfill the needs of the claimants. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance 5 Company submits that on the date of accident, driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licnece, as such, Insurance Company be exonerated to satisfy its liability to pay the amount of compensation. He further submits that after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Claims Tribunal has passed just compensation to the claimants, which needs no interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 10. Before the learned Claims Tribunal, claimants have pleaded income of deceased to Rs.200/- - Rs.250/- per day by running a cycle shop, but has not produced any evidence with respect to salary or income of deceased. The claimants have failed to prove income as pleaded in their claim application, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of case, income of deceased is to be assessed on notional basis. The date of accident was 08.10.2015, therefore, looking to minimum wages rate prevailing in the Districts and State, it will be proper to assess the income of the deceased as Rs.5,860/- per month. 11. The legal position now stands settled by virtue of the law declared by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transportation Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. It stands affirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance 6 Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157. Even though, it has been observed by the Claims Tribunal that the deceased was 32 years of age, there is no conclusive proof with regard to the age. Based on the available materials, the Court reckon the same as 32 years as contended by the claimants. In the instant case, since the accident occurred was in the year 2015, this Court has reckoned the income of deceased as Rs.5,860/- per month, i.e. Rs.70,320/- per annum. Going by the rulings rendered by the Apex Court as cited above, in the case of persons of less than 40 years of age without fixed income, 40% of the income has to be added for fixing the future prospects, which comes to Rs.98,448/- per annum. After deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses, annual income of deceased comes to Rs.73,836/-. After applying the multiplier of 16, the loss of income of deceased comes to Rs.11,81,376/-. 12. The scope of 'consortium' has been subsequently explained by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130. It can be of three types; Parental consortium (payable to children because of the death of parents); Spousal consortium (payable to the surviving spouse because of the death of the partner) and Filial consortium (payable to the parents because of the death of children). This being the position, the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- towards loss of consortium. Further, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is payable towards funeral expenses in view of the 7 law declared in Pranay Sethi (supra). As per the decision rendered in Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants/claimants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Further, 10% enhancement in every three years is also required to be given in respect of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium. 13. On the basis of above recalculation, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. Head Calculation Awarded amount Income of deceased @ Rs.5,860/- per month 40% of (1) above to be added as future prospects Rs.70,320/- per annum 70,320 + 28,128 = Rs.98,448/- 1/4th of (2) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased 98,448 / 4 = Rs.24,612/- = Rs.73,836/- 4. Compensation after 16 of multiplier applied 73,836 x 16 Rs.11,81,376/- 5. Towards estate loss of 6. Towards loss of consortium to all the six claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- 7. Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/- Rs.2,88,000/- Rs.18,000/- 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years 40,000 + 8,000 = 48,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of in every 10% three years 8. Medical Expenses (as awarded by Claims Tribunal) 8 Total Compensation Awarded Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.17,05,376/- 14. In the said circumstance, the total compensation comes to Rs.17,05,376/-. After deducting Rs.9,90,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.7,15,376/-. 15.
Decision
In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein- above. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs.7,15,376/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The other conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 16. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the claimants as modified by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 17. Record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent. Yogesh Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge