High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR MAC No. 828 of 2020 1 - Pushpa Yadav W/o Late Banshidhar Yadav Aged About 44 Years Resident Of Village Kirkima, Post Dumardih, Police Station Lundra, Tahsil Lundra (Dhaurpur), District Surguja Chhattisgarh Surguja Chhattisgarh., (Ambikapur), District : 2 - Ashish Yadav S/o Late Banshidhar Yadav Aged About 27 Years Resident Of Village Kirkima, Post Dumardih, Police Station Lundra, Tahsil Lundra (Dhaurpur), District Surguja Chhattisgarh Surguja Chhattisgarh., (Ambikapur), District : 3 - Shivam Yadav S/o Late Banshidhar Yadav Aged About 15 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Pushpa Yadav Wife Of Late Banshidhar Yadav, Resident Of Village Kirkima, Post Dumardih, Police Station Lundra, Tahsil Lundra (Dhaurpur), District Surguja Chhattisgarh Surguja Chhattisgarh., (Ambikapur), District : 4 - Ramdulari Yadav W/o Late Vindheshwari Yadav Aged About 65 Years Resident Of Village Kirkima, Post Dumardih, Police Station Lundra, Tahsil Lundra (Dhaurpur), District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Deepak Jaiswal S/o Laxman Jaiswal Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Village Gagauli, Post Patora, Police Station Lundra, Tahsil Lundra (Dhaurpur) District Surguja Chhattisgarh. Chhattisgarh (Owner And Driver), (Ambikapur), Surguja District : 2 - The Divisional Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office Manendragarh Road, Near Ambedkar Chowk , Nagar Ambikapur , District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rahul K. Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Swati Agrawal on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board 10.09.2025 2 1) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) has been filed by the appellants/claimants, being aggrieved by the award dated 27.01.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) (for short ‘learned Tribunal’) in Claim Case No. 73/2019. 2) By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 6,55,000/- to the appellants/claimants, on account of the death of deceased Banshidhar Yadav in an accident that took place on 09.07.2018 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Safari) bearing Registration No. CG-15-CZ-4700 by respondent No.1 Driver-cum-owner and insured with respondent No.2/Insurance company. As a result of the said accident, the deceased died while taking hospital for treatment. 3) As per the pleadings, the deceased/ Banshidhar Yadav was aged about 46 years and was engaged in the business of vegetable selling and earning a yearly income of Rs. 5,12,000/-. The appellants/claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased. 4) The respondent No. 1 filed his written statement and denied the averment of the claim application. Respondent No.2 /Insurance company in usual course, denied the averments of the claim application and pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence and there is a violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. 5) On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed issues and after appreciating the material available on record decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded above stated compensation. 3 6) Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the amount of compensation is on the lower side. Hence, suitable enhancement may be made by this Court. 7) Learned counsels for the respondent No.2 supports the award and submits that as the appellant No. 2 is the major son, therefore, the learned tribunal applied 1/3 deduction. She submits that in view of evidence available on record and findings of the learned Tribunal is justified and just compensation has been awarded. 8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records. 9) Considering the evidence available on record; age of the deceased; date of accident; nature of job; this Court is of the view that Rs. 8,500/- can be safely taken as monthly income of the deceased. 10) In light of the above and taking guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others; (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors; (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:- S.N Particular Awarded by this Court Monthly Income of the deceased Future Prospect 25% Net Income Yearly income Personal expenditure 1/3 Yearly dependency 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Multiplier of 13 applied to assess 8,500/- 8,500 X25%=2,125/- 8,500+2,125=10,625/- 10,625 X12=1,27,500/- 1,27,500/3= 42,500/- 1,27,500-42,500=85,000/- 85,000 X13= 11,05,000/- loss of dependency Funeral Expenses 8. 15,000/- 4 9. Loss of estate 15,000/- 10. Spousal, Parental and Filial 1,60,000/- (40,000/- each to A-1 to consortium Total compensation A-4) Rs. 12,95,000/- 11) For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs.6,55,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 12,95,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 6,55,000/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 6,40,000/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @6% per anuum from the date of appeal i.e. 26.05.2020. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. 12) The respondent No. 2–Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation, as awarded by this Court, within a period of 60 days from today. Upon such deposit being made, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- each shall be invested in the name of appellant Nos. 1 and 3/claimants in Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) in any Nationalized Bank for a period of two years. A sum of Rs. 40,000/- shall be disbursed in favour of appellant No. 2, and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- shall be disbursed in favour of appellant No. 4. The remaining amount shall be paid to appellant No. 1 by way of bank transfer/account payee cheque 13) Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.09.17 16:58:08 +0530 H.Ansari