2 - Mohan Lal Patel S/o Late Heera Singh Patel Aged About 70 Years v. 1 - Lakhan Lal Gada S/o Narayan Gada Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:15038 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 1 - Smt. Rameshwari Patel W/o Mohan Lal Patel Aged About 60 Years MAC No. 767 of 2020 2 - Mohan Lal Patel S/o Late Heera Singh Patel Aged About 70 Years Both are R/o House No. B-5, Vidya Vihar, Vidyutnagar, Durg, Police Station Pulgaon, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh versus 1 - Lakhan Lal Gada S/o Narayan Gada Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Dallirajhara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, ( Driver Of Offending Vehicle Ertiga No. C.G. 04-H.L. -5550) --- Appellants 2 - Dhanesh Dewangan S/o Narayan Dewangan Aged About 45 Years R/o Raipura, Shiv Vihar Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Ertiga No. C.G. 04-H.L. -5550) 3 - Divisional Manager Future General Insurance Company Limited, Office Code -23, Shop No. 03, Second Floor, Maruti Business Park, Near Dhuppad Petrol Pump, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Ertiga No. C.G. 04-H.L. -5550) --- Respondents For Appellants For Res. No. 2 : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate : Me. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate For Respondent No.3
Legal Reasoning
1,07,860/-) per annum. There is no dispute with respect to deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenses as on the date of incident, the deceased was unmarried and application of multiplier of 17 applied by the Claims Tribunal is also correct. Accordingly after deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenses, the annual loss of dependency works out 6 to Rs.1,88,755/-. The Claims Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 17, hence, after applying the multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.32,08,835/-. 13. Appellants/claimants are the parents of the deceased, hence, they are entitled for loss of consortium against the death of their major child aged about 34 years as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (Supra) i.e. Rs.40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. Award of compensation towards loss of estate and funeral expenses are also fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) as Rs.15,000/- on each head, for which the appellants are entitled for. It is ordered accordingly. 14. On the basis of above, the compensation calculated by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- S.N. Head Amount. 1. 2. 3. 4. Loss of income/dependency : Rs.32,08,835.00 For loss of consortium to the appellants No.2 and 2 (Rs.40,000/- each) : Rs. 80,000.00 For loss of estate : Rs. 15,000.00 For funeral expenses : Rs. 15,000.00 Total Compensation : Rs.33,18,835.00 15.
Arguments
: Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Chitram Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 28/03/2025 1. Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking 2 enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District – Durg (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 31.01.2020 passed in Claim Case No.108/2018 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.22,96,525/- as compensation in a death case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 09.05.2017, Manjul Mohan Patel (since deceased) was returning to his home at Durg from Dalli Rajhara with his family in his Alto car No. CG 06L 0711. The driver of the Car – Digambar Sahu was driving the said vehicle carefully on his side at normal speed. When they reached near Village Paira on Balod – Durg Main Road, respondent No.1 by driving the Ertiga Car bearing registration No. CG 04HL 5550 rashly and negligently dashed the Alto Car from opposite direction and caused an accident. Due to the accident, Manjul Mohan Patel, Mrs. Anita Patel, Bharatand Patel and Digambar Sahu sitting in the Alto car suffered serious injuries. Looking to the serious condition of Manjul Mohan Patel, he was taken to Sector-9 Hospital, where he was declared dead. 3. Claimants/appellants being the legal heirs of the deceased, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.89,20,000/- pleading therein that at the time of accident, deceased was aged about 34 years, doing the business in the name of M/s. Patel Enterprises and earning Rs.2,69,650/- per annum. It was also pleaded that the claimants/appellants were dependent upon the deceased and he was the sole bread earner of his family. Claimants have also sought compensation under all other 3 heads as are available to them like funeral expenses, for love and affection and for loss of estate etc. 4. Respondents No.1 and 2 jointly filed their reply denying the averments made in the application. It was pleaded that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Alto Car. The respondents No.1 and 2 have been falsely implicated in this case. Respondent No.1 was having valid and effective driving license and the vehicle was insured with respondent No.3, therefore, the insurance company shall liable to pay compensation, if any. 5. Non-applicant No.3-Insurer of offending vehicle, submitted reply to claim application and denied the pleadings made therein. It was also pleaded that the incident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of Alto Car. It was further pleaded that at the time of accident, the respondent No.1 was not having any valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. There was breach of condition of insurance policy, hence, insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 6. Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, the learned Claims Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non- applicant No.1, due to which deceased suffered grievous injuries and died. Breach of Policy condition was not found to be proved. Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.22,96,525/- along with interest @ 6% per annum, fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation. 7. Learned counsel for appellants submits that he is not raising any 4 ground involving the disputed facts. He is pressing this appeal seeking enhancement only on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of future prospects as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. He further submits that the amount of compensation awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses is on lower side. He further contended that learned Claims Tribunal failed to award any amount towards loss of consortium to the appellants, who are parents of the deceased as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. Learned counsel for appellants submits that in the aforementioned facts of the case, this appeal may be finally disposed at motion stage. 8. Submission of learned counsel for appellants is disputed by learned counsel for respondents and submits that the award passed is just and proper. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company has satisfied the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 9. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the impugned award. 10. In this appeal, the learned counsel for appellants has raised the grounds with respect to non-award of compensation towards future prospects, loss of consortium to the appellants parents and further the amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses to be on lower side. All these issues/grounds raised 5 in this appeal is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned decisions, hence, I find it appropriate to dispose of this appeal at motion stage. 11. So far as the award of compensation under the head of loss of future prospects is concerned, the age of the deceased on the date of incident was 34 years. His income as pleaded and found to be proved based on the income tax return submitted by the appellants before the Claims Tribunal is not disputed by the learned counsel for respondents, before this Court. Award of compensation under the head of future prospect is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), therefore, as per aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, there shall be addition of 40% of the assessed income towards the loss of future prospects, to which the learned Claims Tribunal escaped consideration, hence, it is ordered that appellants will be entitled for compensation towards loss of future prospects i.e. addition of 40% of the assessed income in the income of the deceased. 12. Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the yearly income of the deceased to be of Rs.2,69,650/-, accordingly, addition of 40% towards future prospects in the yearly income of the deceased, the total annual income of the deceased works out to Rs.3,77,510/- (2,69,650/- +
Decision
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.33,18,835.00. Any amount paid to the appellants as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. 7 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram