Kanker, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Nakul Ram Gawade S/o Late Charan Singh Gawade Aged About 35 Years
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2025:CGHC:33524 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 776 of 2019 1 - Samsai Netam S/o Danuram Netam Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Bhairadih,police Station Korar, District North Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mangali Bai Netam W/o Samsai Netam Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Bhairadih,police Station Korar, District North Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Nakul Ram Gawade S/o Late Charan Singh Gawade Aged About 35 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Kurri, Police Station Korar, Tahsil Bhanupratappur, District Kanker Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Offending Vehicle), District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 2 - B.L. Dehari S/o Kanwar Singh Dehari, Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Doundi, Police Station And Tahsil Doundi District Balod 2 Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Janpad Panchayat Office Bhanupratappur, Tahsil Bhanupratappur, District Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chhattisgarh State District Poverty Reduction Project Department Of Panchayat And Rural Department A-1, Gayawari Nagar, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.(Owner Of Offending Vehicle, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Incharge Collector, Office Of Collector Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 5 - National Insurance Comapny Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Near Central Bank Jagdalpur, Tahsil And District Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh(Insurer Of Offendin Vehicle ), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 744 of 2019
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Anisha Patel W/o Late Lakhan Lal Patel Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Bhairadih, Police Station Korar, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Jumman Patel S/o Mahguram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Bhairadih, Police Station Korar, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) 3 Versus 1 - Nakul Ram Gawade S/o Late Charan Singh Gond Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kurri, Police Station Korar Tahsil Bhanupratappur, District Kanker Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Offending Vehicle ), District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 2 - B.L. Dehari S/o Kanwal Singh Dehari Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Doundi, Police Station And Tahsil Doundi District Balod Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Janpad Office Bhanupratappur, Tahsil Bhanupratappur, District Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chhattisgarh State District Poverty Reduction Project Department Of Panchayat And Rural Department A 1, Gayatri Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ( Owner Of Offending Vehicle), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Inchanrge Collector, Office Collector, Kanker District Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 5 - National Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Near Central Bank Jagdalpur, Tahsil And District Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) 4 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 : Ms. Pratibha Sahu, Advocate on behalf & 2 of Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 16/07/2025 Order on Board MAC No. 776/2019 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 06.12.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 06/2018 (“Samsai Netam & Another vs. Nakul Ram Gawade & Ors.”) whereby an amount of Rs. 7,10,400/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum has been awarded in the favour of the claimants of the deceased for their irreparable loss. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by the claimants, 5 who are the dependents of the deceased Durjan Kumar Netam, seeking compensation for his death. It was pleaded in the claim petition that on 10.09.2017, the deceased was travelling on his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-19 BD-3306 from Bhairadih to Bhanupratappur, when it was dashed by a Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. CG-02/2898, which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1, resulting in the death of the deceased. An FIR was subsequently registered against respondent No.1. It was also stated that the deceased was working as a mason, and the claimants sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 31,00,000/-. Respondent No.1 has filed a written statement denying the allegations and asserted that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.5 on the date of the incident. Similarly, respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, including the owner of the vehicle, submitted their written statements, stating that the driver held a valid driving license and the vehicle was duly insured. Respondent No. 5 i.e. the Insurance Company, contended that there was no valid driving license at the time of the incident and raised the defense of policy breach. After evaluating the evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal passed the impugned award dated 06.12.2018 (Annexure A-1) has awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,10,400/- which was on the lower side, and also exonerated the 6 insurance company from liability. Hence, this appeal. 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 1/2 of the income i.e. Rs. 37,800/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 37,800/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 25 years and the appellants/claimants are the father and mother of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 6,80,400/-. Further Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 7,10,400/- in favour of the mother and father of the deceased with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,10,400/- 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 7 compensation amount suitably. 5. On the other hand, remaining counsel for the respondents opposes the same. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. 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, nor a Bonanza. 8. 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. 9. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- 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 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. 8 Upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 7,800/- per month as per minimum wages, the annual income comes to Rs. 93,600/- 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. 37,440/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,31,040/-. 10. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 25 years and the appellant/claimants are the mother and father of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/2 (Rs. 65,520/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 65,520/-. 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 18, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 11,79,360/-. 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 9 Rs. (40,000X2+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 96,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. mother and father of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 13,11,360/- in the following manner:- S.No. 01 02 Heads Calculation Towards loss of dependency Rs. 13,11,360/- Towards consortium along with Rs. 96,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X2+10% +10%). 03 Towards loss of estate along Rs. 18,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years. 04 Towards Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/- along with increase of 10% in every three years. Total Rs. 13,11,360/- 11. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 13,11,360/-. After deducting Rs. 7,10,400/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 6,00,960/-. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants i.e. mother and father of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 6,00,960/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced 10 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. MAC No. 744/2019 13. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 07.12.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 05/2018 (“Smt. Anisha Patel & Another vs. Nakul Ram Gawade & Ors.”) whereby an amount of Rs. 9,77,200/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum has been awarded in the favour of the claimants of the deceased for their irreparable loss. 14. Brief facts of the case, is that a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by the claimants, who are the dependents of the deceased Durjan Kumar Netam, seeking compensation for his death. It was pleaded in the claim petition that on 10.09.2017, the deceased was travelling on his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-19 BD-3306 from Bhairadih to Bhanupratappur, when it was dashed by a Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. CG-02/2898, which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1, resulting in the 11 death of the deceased. An FIR was subsequently registered against respondent No.1. It was also stated that the deceased was working as a mason, and the claimants sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 31,00,000/-. Respondent No.1 has filed a written statement denying the allegations and asserted that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.5 on the date of the incident. Similarly, respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, including the owner of the vehicle, submitted their written statements, stating that the driver held a valid driving license and the vehicle was duly insured. Respondent No. 5 i.e. the Insurance Company, contended that there was no valid driving license at the time of the incident and raised the defense of policy breach. After evaluating the evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal passed the impugned award dated 07.12.2018 (Annexure A-1) has awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,77,200/- which was on the lower side, and also exonerated the insurance company from liability. Hence, this appeal. 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 1/3 of the income i.e. Rs. 25,200/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 12 50,400/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 25 years and the appellants/claimants are the wife and father of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 9,07,200/-. 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. 9,77,200/- in favour of the wife and father of the deceased with interest @ 7.5% 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. 9,77,200/- 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, remaining counsel for the respondents opposes the same. 18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13 19. 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, nor a Bonanza. 20. 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. 21. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- 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 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. 7,800/- per month as per minimum wages, the annual income comes to Rs. 93,600/- 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. 37,440/-, the annual income comes to 14 Rs. 1,31,040/-. 22. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 25 years and the appellant/claimants are the wife and father of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3 (Rs. 43,680/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 87,360/-. 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 18, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 15,72,480/-. 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. (40,000X2+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 96,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. wife and father of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 17,04,480/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 15 01 02 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 15,72,480/- Towards consortium along with Rs. 96,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X2+10% +10%). 03 Towards loss of estate along Rs. 18,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years. 04 Towards Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/- along with increase of 10% in every three years. Total Rs. 17,04,480/- 23. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 17,04,480/-. After deducting Rs. 9,77,200/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 7,27,280/-. 24. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants i.e. wife and father of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 7,27,280/- 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/- Raghu Jat (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge