Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:44426 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 278 of 2021 1. Smt. Rajeshvari Patel, W/o Late Gajendra Aged, About 27 Years (Wife), At Present Near Gyatri Mandir Balco, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, Permanent R/o Village Temar, Police Station & Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (Claimant). 2. Naman Patel, S/o Late Gajendra, Aged About 5 Years (Son) Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rajeshvari Patel, At Present Near Gyatri Mandir Balco, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, Permanent R/o Village Temar, Police Station & Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (Claimant). 3. Nihal Patel, S/o Late Gajendra, Aged About 01 Month, (Son) Minor, Through
Legal Reasoning
performing free lancer jobs. Looking to the dependency, this Court inclined to assess the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.11,000/-. 9. In view of above and taking guidance from the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Versus Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court hereby computes the compensation in the following manner :- S.No. Particulars Monthly salary as assessed Compensation Rs.11,000/- A) B) C) D) E) F) G) Addition towards loss of future prospects Rs.16,500/- 50% Yearly income (16500 x 12) Rs.1,98,000/- 1/4th deduction for personal expenses Rs.1,48,500/- (1,98,000 – 49,500) Multiplier of 16 (1,48,500 x 16) Rs.23,76,000/- Funeral expenses + Loss of Estate Rs.30,000/- Spousal, Parental and Filial Consortium Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each to appellants No.1 to 4) TOTAL Rs.25,66,000/- 10. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,78,288/- which is deducted from the 5 total compensation now awarded and the enhanced compensation comes to Rs.9,77,712/- (25,66,000 – 15,78,288). Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, interest @ 6% is also awarded on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the appeal, i.e., from 12.04.2021 to be deposited by the insurance company within a period of 60 days. 11. After deposit Rs.3,00,000/- each shall be invested in the name of appellant No. 2 & 3 as fixed deposit till majority, Rs.2,00,000/- shall be invested in the name of appellant No.1 for a period of 2 years and Rs.1,00,000/- shall be disbursed to appellant No.4. Remaining amount shall be disbursed to appellant No.1 by bank transaction/account payee cheque. 12.
Arguments
Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rajeshvari Patel, At Present Near Gyatri Mandir Balco, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, Permanent R/o Village Temar, Police Station & Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (Claimant). 4. Smt. Neera Bai, W/o Nandram Patel, Aged About 58 Years (Mother), Permanent R/o Village Temar, Police Station & Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh (Claimant). ... Appellants versus 1. Bhushan Prasad Sahu, S/o Patiram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Dhurkot, Police Station & Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (Driver). 2. M/s Salashar Construction And Transport Company Kharsiya, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Owner). 3. Branch Manager New India Insurance Company Limited, Division Officer, Second Flor, Sunaliya Building Satigudi Chowk, Sadar Bajar Road, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company). ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate. DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 01/09/2025 1. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the award dated 18.10.2019 passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.30/2017, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of Rs.15,78,288/-, as compensation in favour of the appellants/claimants on account of death of deceased, Gajendra Patel. 2. An accident occurred on 21.11.2016 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Haiwa bearing Registration No.13-LA-4802 driven by respondent No.1/driver, which was owned by respondent No.2/owner and insured with the respondent No.3/insurance company, which resulted the death of Gajendra Patel. 3. As per the pleadings, deceased was trained electrician and was working at Tripathi Services Balco and used to earn around Rs.9,000/- from there and Rs.7,000/- from free lancing electrician work. His monthly income was shown to be Rs.16,000/-, therefore, the aforesaid amount of compensation was claimed. The claim application was resisted by the respondents on various grounds including insurance company taking plea of violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 4. On the basis of above pleadings, learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded the above stated compensation holding the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.7,680/-. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the amount of compensation 3 is on the lower side and it requires suitable enhancement. The income of the deceased was Rs.16,000/-, whereas, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased only to Rs.7,680/-. He further submits that accounted of the employer of the deceased was also examined, who has stated that he was earning around Rs.9,000/- from his employment. Apart from this, as he was a trained electrician, by free lancing and running his own shop, he was earning Rs.7,000/-. Even otherwise, he submits that the young widow of 27 years, 2 minor sons aged about 5 years and 1 month and the mother, aged about 58 years were dependent upon the income of the deceased. On account of death of deceased, their source of livelihood has vanished, therefore, suitable enhancement may be made. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 opposes the submission made by the counsel for the appellants and submits that the assessment of monthly income of the deceased as Rs.7,680/- is based on proper appreciation of evidence. The learned Claims Tribunal has meticulous examined the evidence available on record and found that from the pay slip marked as Ex.P/13 and he was being paid to Rs.256/- per day, and therefore, the assessment of monthly income was made. Apart from this, he submits that if the deceased had any other shop being free lancer, then he could have placed on record, any established certificate from the concerned municipality authority, therefore, appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of claim case available on record. 8. The issue involved in this appeal is that the income of the deceased was Rs.7,680/- per month as held by the learned Claims Tribunal as Rs.16,000/- per month as claimed by the appellants/claimants. From perusal of the record, it appears that deceased was a trained electrician. A certificate (Training Trade Certificate) of his training is also annexed, which is marked 4 as Ex.P/12, which indicates that he has completed his training from National Council for Vocational Training in the trade of electrician. Apart from this, Ex.P/13 is the salary certificate, which appears to have been proved by the AW-3, who was accounted of the employer of the deceased. According to which, per day rate of Rs.255.6/- was being to him and it also indicates that PF and ESIC was also deducted from his account. Therefore, in these circumstances, naturally the deceased was salaried employee. Apart from this, he was a trained electrician, naturally he would have been earning by
Decision
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the impugned award to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge