Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Ramji Netam S/o Shivraj Netam Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Nathunwagaon
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2025:CGHC:32738 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 658 of 2018 1 - Branch Manager National Insurance Company Limited, Kamptee Line, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Ramji Netam S/o Shivraj Netam Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Nathunwagaon, Post Tumdibod, Thana/tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ramsila Bai Netam W/o Ramji Netam Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Nathunwagaon, Post Tumdibod, Thana/tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 3 - Rajesh Netam S/o Ramji Netam Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Nathunwagaon, Post Tumdibod, Thana/tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Ishwari Netam W/o Late Deepak Netam Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Nathunwagaon, Post Tumdibod, Thana/tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Kumari Anuska D/o Late Deepak Netam Aged About 01 Month, Through Guardian Next Friend Mother Smt. Ishwari Netam W/o Late Deepak Netam, R/o Village Nathunwagaon, Post Tumdibod, Thana/tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Pankaj Patel S/o Jagtu Patel Aged About 32 Years R/o Maggutola, Thana/tehsil Doundilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, Present Address Mohara Ward No. 47, Thana Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Driver), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Dilip Kumar Sahu S/o Late Samaruram Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Haldi, Post Mohara, Thana Lalbag, Tehsil/district Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Owner), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 : None. 3 MAC No. 706 of 2018 1 - Ramji Netam S/o Sivraj Netam Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Nathunwaganv, Post Tumdibod, P.S. Tahsil Dongergaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ramsila Bai, W/o Ramji Netam, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Nathunwaganv, Post Tumdibod, P.S. Tahsil Dongergaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Rajesh Netam, S/o Ramji Netam, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Nathunwaganv, Post Tumdibod, P.S. Tahsil Dongergaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Ishwari Netam, W/o Late Shri Deepak Netam, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Nathunwaganv, Post Tumdibod, P.S. Tahsil Dongergaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Kumari Anushka, D/o Late Shri Deepak Netam, Aged About 1 Years Through Her Legal Guardian Her Mother Smt. Ishwari Netam, Age About 20 Years, W/o Late Shri Deepak Netam, R/o Village Nathunwaganv, Post Tumdibod, P.S. Tahsil Dongergaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Pankaj Patel S/o Jagtu Patel, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Maggutola, P.S.- Tahsil Doundilohara, District Balod Chhattisgarh At 4 Present R/o Mohara, Ward No. 47, P.S. Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh..........Driver, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dilip Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Samaru Ram Sahu, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Haldi, Post Mohara, P.S. Lalbag, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh........Owner, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Branch Manager, Kamthi Line, Tahsil- District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.......Insurance Company, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Yogesh C. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. : None. 1 & 2 For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 14/07/2025 1. Both the appeals are arising out of one accident, in which one award dated 05.01.2018 has been passed. MAC No. 658/2018 is insurer’s appeal and MAC No. 706/2018 is claimants’ appeal against the award dated 05.01.2018 passed by the learned 2nd Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 08/2017. 5 MAC No. 658/2018 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 01.01.2017 at about 9:30 A.M., deceased Deepak was driving a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 04/00/6471 on the middle of the road with his wife as pillion rider when a truck bearing No. CG 07/C/5565 came from the opposite direction and collided with the said motorcycle, resulting in the death of Deepak on the spot. The claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, however, the record reveals that the deceased was driving the motorcycle under the influence of liquor and the accident occurred due to his negligence, making the claimants ineligible for compensation from the appellant insurance company and rendering the claim liable to be dismissal. The owner and driver of the truck did not file their written statement and were proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal. Further, no documentary evidence regarding the income or age of the deceased was produced by the claimants. Despite this, the Tribunal has wrongly awarded 40% future prospects, even though the deceased had no fixed salary, and even no income documents were filed. The insurance company produced Exhibit D-1, proving that the deceased was not employed at the claimed place, indicating that the claimants attempted to obtain excessive compensation on a false basis. Since the deceased himself was 6 responsible for the accident, the claim was liable to be dismissed, however, considering the head-on collision in the middle of the road, contributory negligence may also be considered in the interest of justice. As there was no proof of income, the Tribunal should have assessed the income at Rs. 3,000/- per month. Additionally, the father of the deceased, Ramji, was an earning member and not dependent on him, similarly, the mother, Ramsila, was dependent on her husband, and major brother Rajesh was also not dependent on the deceased. Therefore, only the widow, Smt. Ishwari, and minor daughter, Kumari Anuska, were dependents, and the deduction should have been 1/3rd instead of 1/4th as wrongly applied by the Tribunal. Furthermore, the listed eyewitness cited by the police was not examined by the claimants in the present case under Section 166 M.V. Act, and in the absence of any independent eyewitness testimony, the claim case remained unproved and was also liable to dismissal. 3. After considering the evidence and documents brought on record, the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- per month i.e. Rs. 54,000/- per annum. After adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 21,600/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 75,600/- After deduction of 1/4 of the income i.e. Rs. 18,900/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 56,700/-. Considering the age of the deceased to be 26 years, 7 the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 17 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 9,63,900/-. Further Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 10,33,900/- in favour of appellants of the deceased with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization.After considering the evidence and documents brought on record, the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- per month i.e. Rs. 54,000/- per annum. After adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 21,600/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 75,600/- After deduction of 1/4 of the income i.e. Rs. 18,900/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 56,700/-. Considering the age of the deceased to be 26 years, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 17 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 9,63,900/-. Further Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 10,33,900/- in favour of appellants of the deceased with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits 8 that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,33,900/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be reduced in accordance with law. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/4th income because major brother and earning father of deceased were not dependent on the deceased. Hence, deduction would be 1/3rd. He further submits that deceased Deepak was driving his motorcycle under influence of alcohol, hence, accident occurred and for that reason, claim petition was liable to be dismissed. He further submits that no any eye witness have been examined to prove the negligency of insured truck, hence in absence of any proof of negligency, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, this appeal. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 5 opposes the same. 6. None for respondent Nos. 6 & 7 i.e. driver and owner of offending vehicle. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, 9 nor a Bonanza. 9. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 10. As regards the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- per month which appears to be proper on the date of accident. Hence, accepting the income of the deceased Rs. 4,500/- per month, the annual income comes to Rs. 54,000/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 21,600/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 75,600/-. 11. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 26 years and the appellant/claimants are the mother, wife and daughter of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3 (Rs. 25,200/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual income comes to Rs. 50,400/-. 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 10 17, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 8,56,800/-. The claimants are further entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate (increase of 10% in every three years) and Rs. 18,000/- for funeral expenses (increase of 10% in every three years). 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 (40,000x3+10%+10%-40,000 already given by the tribunal) for loss of consortium totaling Rs. 1,04,000/-. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. wife, mother and daughter of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 9,96,800/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of Rs. 8,56,800/- dependency 02 Towards loss of Rs. 1,04,000/- consortium(40,000X3+10 %+10%-40,000) with an increase of 10% in every three years. 03 Towards loss of estate Rs. 18,000/- along with increase of 10% in every three years. 04 Towards Funeral Rs. 18,000/- Expenses along with increase of 10% in every three years. Total Rs. 9,96,800/- 12. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 9,96,800/-. 11 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The deduction towards personal expenses is reassessed at 1/3 instead of 1/4 as determined by the learned Tribunal. Consequently, the compensation amount stands reduced accordingly. Rest of the award is upheld. No order as to cost MAC No. 706/2018 14. Brief facts of the case, is that, respondent No. 1 is the driver and respondent No. 2 is the owner of the vehicle, a truck bearing registration number CG 07/C/5565, which is insured with respondent No. 3 i.e. Insurance Company. The present case pertains to the death of Deepak Netan, who was the husband and father of Claimants No. 4 and 5, son of Claimants No. 1 and 2, and brother of Claimant No. 3. On 01.01.2017, the deceased was driving a Honda Passion Plus motorcycle bearing registration number CG 04/DD/6471, traveling from his hometown Thanunwagaon to Jhitia. When he reached near Village Rewagahan, he stopped and parked his motorcycle on his side of the road. At that moment, respondent No. 1, while driving the truck rashly and negligently, hit the deceased’s vehicle from behind, causing severe injuries and died on the spot. His wife, who was accompanying him, also sustained grievious 12 injuries, including a leg fracture. The incident was reported to Lalbagh Police Station, and an offence under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A IPC was registered against the driver. Before the accident, the deceased was a healthy individual employed as a supervisor at Thermocare Rock Fiber Pvt. Ltd. and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. The learned Claims Tribunal, after framing five issues and recording evidence, passed an award dated 05.01.2018 granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,33,900/-. The award was passed without properly appreciating the material evidence on record, and hence, this appeal is filed for enhancement of the compensation. 15. After considering the evidence and documents brought on record, the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- per month i.e. Rs. 54,000/- per annum. After adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 21,600/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 75,600/- After deduction of 1/4 of the income i.e. Rs. 18,900/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 56,700/-. Considering the age of the deceased to be 26 years, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 17 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 9,63,900/-. Further Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation 13 of Rs. 10,33,900/- in favour of appellants of the deceased with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,33,900/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. 17. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 3 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 18. None for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and owner of offending vehicle. 19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 20. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, 14 nor a Bonanza. 21. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 22. As regards the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at 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 per minimum wages, 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 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 29,789/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,04,261/-. 23. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 26 years and the appellant/claimants are the wife, parents and daughter of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3 (Rs. 34,754/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 69,507/-. In view of 15 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 17, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 11,81,619/-. The claimants are further entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate (increase of 10% in every three years) and Rs. 18,000/- for funeral expenses (increase of 10% in every three years). As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for Rs. (40,000X4+10%+10%-40,000 already given by the tribunal) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 1,52,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. parents, wife and daughter of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 13,21,619/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of Rs. 11,81,619/- dependency 02 Towards loss of Rs. 1,52,000/- consortium(40,000X3+10 %+10%-40,000) with an increase of 10% in every three years. 16 03 Towards loss of estate Rs. 18,000/- along with increase of 10% in every three years. 04 Towards Funeral Rs. 18,000/- Expenses along with increase of 10% in every three years. 24. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 13,69,619/-. Total Rs. 13,69,619/- After deducting Rs. 10,33,900/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 3,35,719/-. 25. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants i.e. parents, wife and daughter of the deceased shall be entitled to Rs. 3,35,719/- 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. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat