Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Hem Bai W/o Late Rajendra Banjare Aged About 40 Years R/o Village
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2025:CGHC:23136 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 685 of 2018 1 - Cholamandlam General Insurance Company Ltd Second Floor Shri Ram Tower Pandri, Opposite Lic Building, Through Deputy Manager (Legal), Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company, Opposite Life Insurance Corporation Pandri, P.S. Pandri, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Hem Bai W/o Late Rajendra Banjare Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Bodsara, Chowki Naila P.S. And Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Suraj S/o Late Rajendra Banjare Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Bodsara, Chowki Naila P.S. And Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Minor Chand Banjare S/o Late Rajendra Banjare Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Mother Hembai, R/o Village Bodsara, Chowki Naila P.S. And Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 4 - Minor Ranjana Banjare D/o Late Rajendra Banjare Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Mother Hembai, R/o Village Bodsara, Chowki Naila P.S. And Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - Savitri Banjare W/o Sakha Ram Banjare Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Bodsara, Chowki Naila P.S. And Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 6 - Manharan S/o Harilal Aged About 46 Years Caste Narang, R/o Anand Nagar Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, Presently R/o Senduras P.S. Sarsinwa Tehsil Bilaigarh, District Baloudabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (Driver), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 7 - Puneshwar Chandra S/o Achche Ram Chandra Aged About 58 Years R/o Balpur P.S. Sarsinwa Tahsil Bilaigarh District Baloudabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (Owner), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 370 of 2018 1 - Hem Bai W/o Late Rajendra Banjare Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Bodsara, Out Post Naila, Police Station And Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 2 - Suraj S/o Late Rajendra Banjare Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Bodsara, Out Post Naila, Police Station And Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Minor Chand Banjare S/o Late Rajendra Banjare Aged About 17 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Hembai, Appellant No.1, R/o Village Bodsara, Out Post Naila, Police Station And Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Minor Ranjana Banjare S/o Late Rajendra Banjare Aged About 8 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Hembai, Appellant No.1, R/o Village Bodsara, Out Post Naila, Police Station And Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Savitri Banjare W/o Late Sakha Ram Banjare Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Bodsara, Out Post Naila, Police Station And Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Manharan S/o Harilal Aged About 46 Years R/o Anand Nagar Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, At Present Senduras, Police Station Sarsiwa, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Offending Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G.12-C-2734), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Puneshwar Chandra S/o Achhe Ram Chandra Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Balpur, Police Station Sarsiwa, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G.12-C-2734), District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 4 3 - Insurance Company Chola Mandlam Insurance Company Limited
Legal Reasoning
Raipur Address Second Floor Shri Ram Towers Pandri, In Front Of Lic Building Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) in MAC No. : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. 685/2018 & respondent No. 3 in MAC No. 370/2018 For Appellant(s) in MAC No. : Mr. S. P. Sahu, Advocate on behalf 370/2018 & respondents of Mr. C. R. Sahu, Advocate. No. 1 to 5 in MAC No. 685/2018 For Respondent/ Driver Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate. For Respondent/Owner : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 11/06/2025 Order on Board 1. Since both appeals arise out of the same order dated 08.12.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar, District – Baloda Bazar (C.G.), in Claim Cases No. 11/2017, they
Decision
are being heard and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The insurance company has preferred this appeal while challenging the quantum of award however the same has been 5 objected by the learned counsel for the appellant stating that the insurance company is not entitled to challenge the quantum. He further submits that since an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act has been filed as such he is entitled to challenge the quantum of the award passed by the tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in each and every case the insurance company is not entitled to challenge the award on the basis of quantum, however, the ground which has been raised in this appeal regarding challenge to the income of the deceased is itself not challengeable as the tribunal has assessed the income in a lower side and for that the claimants have filed an appeal for enhancement of the award. He further submits that it is a case of contributory negligence however upon perusal of the record it seems that it has not been established. 4. From the bare perusal of the award it seems that the income has not been determined in proper prospect the claims tribunal erred in law while holding the notional income to be Rs. 4,500/- per month in case of the appellant whereas at the time of incident i.e. on 31.12.2016 the notional income which is being considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court on the basis of Minimum Wages Act it is to be considered on the basis of Rs. 6206 per month. Thereafter the tribunal has further erred in law while awarding consortium only to the widow to the extent of Rs. 6 40,000/- whereas the claimants No. 2, 3 & 4 were son and daughters of the deceased Rajendra Banjare were only awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards their parental consortium which as per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others is required to be given Rs. 40,000/- each. Further, so far as the other conventional heads are concerned Rs. 15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses have been awarded which according to National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others is required to be enhanced 10% every three years as such the appeal filed by the insurance company seems to be erroneous on the basis of quantum which has been awarded by the tribunal and it seems that the award which has been passed by the tribunal is required to be enhanced as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others. Accordingly, the award passed by the tribunal in respect of grant of compensation for death of Rajendra Banjare is enhanced. 5. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 400/- per day i.e. Rs. 12,000/- per month from his work, but no documentary evidence in this regard has been produced by the claimants. The learned claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the 7 deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month. Therefore, in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of the deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, price index and cost of living etc. especially notification by Labour Department for minimum wages. Upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 6,206/- per month as minimum wages, at the relevant time of accident i.e. 31.12.2016, the annual income comes to Rs. 74,472/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 25% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 18,618/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 93,090/-. 6. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 43 years and the appellant/claimants are the wife & children of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4 (Rs. 23,272/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 69,818/-. 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, after applying multiplier of 14, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 9,77,452/-. The 8 claimants are further entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 18,000/- for funeral expenses. As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each (40,000 X 5+ 10% +10%) for loss of love and affection and consortium of Rs. 2,40,000/-. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. wife and children of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 12,33,452/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Towards loss of dependency Towards loss of estate 1. 2. 3. Calculation Rs. 9,77,452/- Rs. 18,000/- Towards constortium to all the Rs. 2,40,000/- five claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- +10%+10% 4. Funeral Expenses Total Rs. 18,000/- Rs. 12,53,452/- 7. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 12,53,452/-. After deducting Rs. 8,98,792/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 3,54,660/-. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Insurance company is fails and the appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants i.e. wife and children of the deceased shall 9 be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 3,54,660/- 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. 9. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Tribunal below. The said communication be made in Hindi (Deonagri) language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, State Legal Services Authority and the DLSA of the concerned area where the claimants resides. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat