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:31001 NAFR MAC No. 1435 of 2017 Smt. Bharti Mandavi (Died) Through Lrs. 1- Manoj Mandavi Husband of Late Smt. Bharti Mandavi Aged About 41, 2 - Rani Mandavi D/o Late Smt. Bharti Mandavi Aged About 12 Years, 3 - Ranu Mandavi D/o Late Smt. Bharti Mandavi Aged About 18 Years, 4 - Jitu Mndavi S/o Late Smt. Bharti Mandavi Aged About 17 Years, 5 - Jeet Mandavi S/o Late Smt. Bharti Mandavi Aged About 13 Years, The applicants No.2, 4 and 5 are minor, represented through and father Manoj Mandavi. All are resident of Ward No.10, Veer Narayan Singh Ward, Dalli-Rajhara (M) Balod, Chhattisgarh versus ... Appellants 1 - Jai Prakash Yadav S/o Ram Bhadur Yadav Aged About 28 Years R/o At Present Jahawar Nagar, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh, District Bastar. 2 - Smt. Kamla Devi Singh W/o P. C. Singh, R/o Shanti Nagar Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 3 - United India Insurance Company Limited Divisional Manager, Divisional Office - Power House Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge 07.07.2025 Judgment on Board 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 26.11.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.1/2015 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the injured claimant. 2.
Facts
Brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that, on 27.09.2014,
Legal Reasoning
this Court in Gujarat State Road Transport 9 Corporation’s case (supra) that even after death of the injured, the claim petition does not abate and right to sue survives to his heirs and legal representatives.” 13. This view has subsequently been followed in a decision authored by brother Justice M.R. Shah J., (as he then was) in Madhuben Maheshbhai Patel vs. Joseph Francis Mewan and Others, 2015 (2) GLH 499, holding as follows: “10. Considering the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surpal Singh Ladhubha Gohil (supra); decisions of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Jenabai Widow of Abdul Karim Musa (supra) and in the case of Amrishkumar Vinodbhai (supra); and aforesaid two decisions of the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, we are of the opinion that maxim “actio personalis moritur cum persona” on which Section 306 of the Indian Evidence Act (sic Indian Succession Act) is based cannot have an applicability in all actions even in an case of personal injuries where damages flows from the head or under the head of loss to the estate. Therefore, even after the death of the injured claimant, claim petition does not abate and right to sue survive to his heirs and legal representatives in so far as loss to the estate is concerned, which would include 10 personal expenses incurred on the treatment and other claim related to loss to the estate. Under the circumstances, the issue referred to the Division Bench is answered accordingly. Consequently, it is held that no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in permitting the heirs to be brought on record of the claim petition and permitting the heirs of the injured claimant who died subsequently to proceed further with the claim petition. However, the claim petition and even appeal for enhancement would be confine to the claim for the loss to the estate as observed hereinabove.” 14. Similar view has been taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Joti Ram v. Chamanlal, AIR 1985 P&H 2 and the Madras High Court in Thailammai vs. A.V. Mallayya Pillai, 1991 ACJ 185 (Mad). 15. The view taken in Kanamma v. General Manager, 1990 SCC OnLine Kar 582 and Uttam Kumar v. Madhav, 2002 SCC OnLine Kar 219 that the claim would abate is based on a narrow interpretation of the Act which does not commend to us. The reasoning of the Gujarat High Court is more in consonance with aim, purpose and spirit of the Act and furthers its real intent and purpose which we therefore approve. 16. The injuries suffered by the deceased in the accident required prolonged 11 hospitalization for six months. The extent of disability suffered was assessed on 16.06.2000 as 100%. The extent of disability, pursuant to physiotherapy was reassessed as 75% on 08.08.2002. In the interregnum, the injured resigned his job on 30.09.2001 at the age of 53 years as he found movement difficult and inconvenient without an attendant as distinct from complete immobility. The injured was possessing professional qualifications in labour laws and Industrial relations along with a Diploma in Personnel Management. He may have had to suffer some handicap in also practicing before the labour court, but cannot be held to have suffered 100% physical disability as his capacity for rendering advisory and other work coupled with movement on a wheel chair with the aid of an attendant could still facilitate a reduced earning capacity. It cannot be held that the injured was completely left with no source of livelihood except to deplete his estate. In assessing, what has been described as a ‘Just Compensation’ under the Act, all factors including possibilities have to be kept in mind. 17. The Tribunal, on technicalities rejected his claim for salary, medical expenses and percentage of disability and granted a measly compensation of Rupees one lakh only by a cryptic order. We are, therefore, of the opinion that while the claim for personal injuries may not have survived after the death 12 of the injured unrelated to the accident or injuries, during the pendency of the appeal, but the claims for loss of estate caused was available to and could be pursued by the legal representatives of the deceased in the appeal. 18. In Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2019) 7 SCC 217, compensation on the basis of complete loss of income, the percentage of disability, future prospects were granted applying the relevant multiplier. Again, in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413 the injured was assessed as 100 per cent disabled, considering all of which compensation was awarded on the notional future prospects along with relevant multiplier. The loss of income to the injured in the facts of the present case has to be assessed at 75%. In view of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, there shall be no deduction towards personal expenses. 19. We see no reason to deviate from the consistent judicial view taken by more than one High Court that loss of estate would include expenditure on medicines, treatment, diet, attendant, Doctor’s fee, etc. including income and future prospects which would have caused reasonable accretion to the estate but for the sudden expenditure which had to be met from and depleted the estate of the injured, subsequently deceased.” 13. Considering the matter in the light of aforementioned judgment of 13 the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is quite clear that before the learned Claims Tribunal, deceased claimant has pleaded her income as Rs.200/- per day while selling the vegetables, but has not produced any evidence with respect to salary or income of deceased. The deceased claimant has failed to prove income as pleaded in her 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 27.09.2014, therefore, looking to minimum wages rate prevailing in the Districts and State, it will be proper to hold engagement of deceased claimant in unskilled work and her income to be assessed to Rs.5,468/- per month and accordingly, annual income of the deceased would reckon to Rs.65,616/-. Since this Court is of the opinion that the deceased has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 40%, the annual loss of income comes to Rs.39,370/-. Going by the rulings rendered by the Apex Court as cited above, in the case of persons of less than 40 years of age with no fixed income, 40% of the income has to be added for fixing the future prospects, which comes to Rs.55,118/- per annum. After applying the multiplier of 17, the loss of income of deceased comes to Rs.9,37,006/-. 14. It is an admitted fact that the deceased has suffered grievous injuries over her person and her right hand got amputated as well as she has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 40% as per disability certificate (Ex.P/17), she was entitled for a sum of 14 Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses (though Rs.5,000/- was awarded by learned Claims Tribunal) and Rs.1,00,000/- towards attendant charges. 15. On the basis of above recalculation, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Sl. No. 1. Head Calculation Awarded amount Income of deceased @ Rs.5,468/- per month Rs.65,616/- per annum 2. 40% of (1) deducted towards permanent disability 3. 40% of (2) above to be added as future prospects 65,616 x 40% (65,616 – 26,246) Rs.39,370/- 39,370 + 15,748 Rs.55,118/- 4. Compensation after 17 of multiplier applied 55,118 x 17 Rs.9,37,006/- 5. Towards estate loss of Rs.18,000/- 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of in every 10% three years 6. Towards Medical Expenses 7. Towards Attendant Charges Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.11,55,006/- Total Compensation Awarded 16. In the said circumstance, the total compensation comes to Rs.11,55,006/-. After deducting Rs.1,87,400/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.9,67,606/-. 17.
Arguments
Smt. Bharti Mandavi (since deceased) along with her minor son aged about 2 years was going from Kanker to Bhanupratappur in a Bus bearing registration No.CG-19-F-0486 (in short ‘offending vehicle’) and when they reached Dhaneli-Kanhar Road, at about 5.30 PM, respondent No.1 dashed the motorcycle while driving the same rashly and negligently, as a result of which, Smt. Bharti Mandavi suffered grievous injuries and his right hand got amputated and she has suffered permanent disability and in the accident, her son also sustained injuries over his head. 3. The injured claimant along with her son have filed a claim petitions being Claim Case Nos.1/2015 and 2/2015, respectively claiming Rs.12,24,000 and Rs.5,00,000/-, respectively as compensation under various heads pleading therein that at the time of accident, she was aged about 27 years and earning Rs.200/- per days while selling the vegetables. 3 4. Respondents No.1 and 2/non-applicants No. 1 and 2 were proceeded ex-parte before the learned Claims Tribunal. 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 well as vehicle was not having valid permit, as such there was violation of breach of policy conditions. It has been further pleaded that there was non-joinder of the party respondent as the Insurance Company of offending vehicle was not made as a party respondent, as such 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 awarded total compensation of Rs.1,87,400/- to Smt. Bharti Mandavi and Rs.500/- to her son Jeet Kumar along with interest @ 8% 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. During the pendency of the appeal before this Court, Smt. Bharti Mandavi died on 19.06.2022 and as such, her legal representatives were brought on record to contest the claim on behalf of Late Smt. Bharti Mandavi. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the 4 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 loss of income. It has been contended that learned Claims Tribunal has committed error of law while disbelieving the permanent disability sustained by Smt. Bharti Mandavi as she has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 40%, which has been confirmed by the Medical Board while issuing disability certificate, as such, the Claims Tribunal should have awarded appropriate amount of compensation while considering the permanent disability certificate. It has been further contended that even if the income of the injured is not established, it should have been calculated according to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 at the relevant point of time. As such, the appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced suitably. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kahlon alias Jasmail Singh Kahlon (deceased) through his legal representative Narinder Kahlon Gosakan and another, (2022) 13 SCC 494. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2/ driver and owner submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.1,87,400/- in favour of the claimant (since deceased) and fastened the liability upon the 5 driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. She further submits that since the insurance policy is admitted and on the date of accident, offending vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company, as such, the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon the Insurance Company. 10. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/Insurance 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. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 12. In the matter of Kahlon alias Jasmail Singh Kahlon (deceased), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “8. The Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. Section 166(1) (a) of the Act provides for a statutory claim for compensation arising out of an accident by the person who has sustained the injury. Under Clause (b), compensation is payable to the owner of the property. In case of death, the legal representatives of the deceased can pursue the claim. Property, under the Act, will 6 have a much wider connotation than the conventional definition. If the legal heirs can pursue claims in case of death, we see no reason why the legal representatives cannot pursue claims for loss of property akin to estate of the injured if he is deceased subsequently for reasons other than attributable to the accident or injuries under Clause 1(c) of Section 166. Such a claim would be completely distinct from personal injuries to the claimant and which may not be the cause of death. Such claims of personal injuries would undoubtedly abate with the death of the injured. What would the loss of estate mean and what items would be covered by it are issues which has to engage our attention. The appellant has a statutory obligation to pay compensation in motor accident claim cases. This obligation cannot be evaded behind the defence that it was available only for personal injuries and abates on his death irrespective of the loss caused to the estate of the deceased because of the injuries. 9. In Umedchand Golcha v. Dayaram, 2000 SCC OnLine MP 372, giving a broad liberal interpretation to the provisions of the Act so that legal representatives do not suffer injustice, it was observed that the claim for personal injuries will not survive on death of the injured unrelated to the accident but the legal representatives could pursue the claim for enhancement of the claim for loss of the 7 estate which would include expenditure on medical expenses, travelling, attendant, diet, doctor’s fee and reasonable monthly annual accretion to the estate for a certain period. It is trite that the income which a person derives compositely forms part of the expenditure on himself, his family and the savings go to the estate. The unforeseen expenses as aforesaid naturally have to be met from the estate causing pecuniary loss to the estate. 10. In Maimuna Begum v. Taju, 1987SCC OnLine Bom 351, the defence under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 on the old English Common Law maxim “actio personalis moritur cum persona” was rejected opining that it would be unjust to nonsuit the heirs on that ground. 11. In Venkatesan v. Kasthuri, 2012 SCC OnLine Mad 4122, the injured claimant preferred an appeal dissatisfied, but was deceased during the pendency of the appeal. Compensation came to be awarded under the Act for loss of estate keeping in mind the nature of the injuries, the treatment, the expenditure incurred and loss of income. 12. In Surpal Singh Ladhubha Gohil v. Raliyabahen Mohanbhai Savlia, 2008 SCC OnLine Guj 221, Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J. (as he then was), observed that the Act was a social welfare legislation providing for compensation by award to people who sustain bodily injuries or get killed. The grant 8 of compensation had to be expeditious as procedural technicalities could not be allowed to defeat the just purpose of the act. The Courts in construing social welfare legislations had to adopt a beneficial rule of construction which fulfils the policy of the legislation favorable to those in whose interest the Act has been passed. Judicial discipline demanded that the words of a remedial statutes be construed so far as they reasonably admit so as to secure that relief contemplated by the statute and it shall not be denied to the class intended to be relieved. Rejecting the maxim of “actio personalis moritur cum persona” on the premise that it was an injury done to the person and the claim abated with his demise it was observed: “11. The question as to whether injury was personal or otherwise is of no significance so far as the wrong doer is concerned and he is obliged to make good the loss sustained by the injured. Legal heirs and legal representatives would have also suffered considerable mental pain and agony due to the accident caused to their kith and kin. Possibly they might have looked after their dear ones in different circumstances, which cannot be measurable in monetary terms. We are therefore in full agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge of
Decision
In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part. 15 The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein- above. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs.9,67,606/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 8% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The other conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 18. 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. 19. Record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent. Yogesh Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge