1 - Shanti Bai Wd/o Late Ramvichar, Aged About 35 Years Caste Uraon, R/o v. 1 - Rakesh Ekka S/o
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:34791 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 796 of 2019 1 - Shanti Bai Wd/o Late Ramvichar, Aged About 35 Years Caste Uraon, R/o Village Sardih, Police Station And Tahsil Bagicha District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Ku. Anisha D/o Late Ramvichar, Aged About 10 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Shanti Bai, Widow Of Late Ramvichar, Aged About 35 Years, Caste Uraon, R/o Village Sardih, Police Station Tahsil Bagicha District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Rakesh Ekka S/o Shri Tarsiyus Ekka, Occuptaion Driver, R/o Tahsil Chowk (Near Power House ) , Bagicha Police Station And Tahsil Bagicha District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. (Driver). 2 - Mukesh Sharma, S/o Shri Mulchnd Sharma, R/o Ward No. 7, Near Bus Stand, Bagicha, Police Station And Tahsil Bagicha District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. (Owner). 3 - Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Company Ltd., Second Floor Shiv Mohan Bahwen Vidhan Shabha Road Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer ). ... Respondents For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Res. : No. Mr. Utsav Mahishwar, Advocate 3/Insurance Company 2 S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 17/07/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally. 2. This is the claimants’ appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur (CG) vide award dated 18th of January, 2019 passed in Claim Case No.23 of 2018. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 14/03/2017, when Ramvichar (since deceased) was returning his village Sardih after discharging his duty from school by his motorcycle, at that time, respondent No. 1 while driving the Duster vehicle bearing registration No. C.G./M.D.-1967 from Bagicha towards Ambikapur rashly & negligently, dashed the motorcycle from front side, as a result thereof, Ramvichar sustained grievous injuries in his right leg and waist, immediately, thereafter, he was taken to Ambikapur hospital in a private vehicle for treatment, where he died on the same day. The deceased was about 38 years old and was a skilled driver, who used to earn Rs. 11,000 per month by driving a school vehicle and in the remaining time, he used to do agriculture and labourer work and earned Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2, which was being driven by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 3. 3 4. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed their written statement in the case and denied the facts mentioned in the application and alleged that respondent No. 1- Rakesh Ekka was driving the offending vehicle very slowly and cautiously from Bagicha to Ambikapur, when a deceased coming from Ambikapur in a motorcycle at a very high speed without wearing a helmet hit the offending vehicle. The driver of the said motorcycle did not know how to drive a motorcycle and was learning to drive and he also did not have a valid driving license. It is further pleaded that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, therefore, respondents No. 1 & 2 are not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 5. Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company while opposing the claim application filed by the claimants has pleaded that claimants have not submitted any supporting documents with regard to the income of the deceased. The claimants have exaggerated the income with an intent to obtain excessive benefits. It is further stated that death of the deceased occurred due to his own negligence and he himself is responsible for such accident. At the time of accident, the driver did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle. Therefore, respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any amount of compensation to the claimants, and prayed for exoneration from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which Ramvichar sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to those 4 injuries. After Assessing income of the appellant/claimant as Rs 7,000/- per month, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, and awarded total compensation of Rs. 12,46,000/- to the claimants, who are unfortunate widow and minor child of deceased – Ramvichar. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding low amount of compensation to the claimants by assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 7,000/- pm only overlooking the documentary evidence produced before the Claims Tribunal that the deceased was working as the driver of Tata Magic (Light Motor Vehicle), produced license and also the salary certificate and the said facts were proved by Fulchand Kujur (AW-3), the owner of the vehicle, driven by the deceased. It is pleaded that the amount of compensation awarded under other conventional head is not sufficiently awarded. Loss of consortium is not awarded to the claimant No. 2/the minor son. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance Company/respondent No. 3 while opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal disbelieved the evidence as brought on record with regard to nature of occupation and also income of the deceased. He submits that the amount of compensation, as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal, in the facts of the case, is just and proper, which does not call for the interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. 10. To appreciate the submission of learned counsel for the appellants with regard to assessment of earnings of deceased by learned Tribunal 5 is concerned, the claimants in the claim application have pleaded the occupation of the deceased as driver of the Tata Magic and the name of employer is Fulchand Kujr and income of deceased as 11,000/-per month. The claimants in support of the aforementioned pleadings has filed the copy of driving licence, as Ex. A/11. The salary certificate issued by the employer under his signature as Ex. A/12 mentioning that he was running Tata Magic School Van, which was being driven by the deceased against which he was paying Rs. 11,000/-pm. The claimant to prove the nature of occupation and pleading have examined the claimant No. 1 as AW01, and the owner of the Tata magic vehicle namely, Fulchand Kujur as AW03. In cross-examination, their evidence as stated by them in examination-in-Chief remained unshaken. Though, the license issued in the name of deceased and filed as Ex. A/11, mentions the validity of the licence from 20.11.1995 up to 23.06.2015 only, there is no endorsement of the renewal of licence, however, the facts remains that as per the licence, he was having driving licence at same point of time to drive Light Motor Vehicle. The employer of the vehicle, in which, he was engaged as driver is also examined and, therefore, I find it appropriate to consider the occupation of the deceased to be as driver. True it is that except the certificate issued in plain paper and the oral evidence of owner of the Tata Magic vehicle namely Fulchand, there is no document on record to show amount of Rs. 11,000/- transferred in the bank account the deceased at any point of time and, therefore, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased treating him to be driver considering the minimum wage fixed by competent authority under the Act of 1948 determined for the skilled laborour the wages for the 6 skilled laborour for the period from 1.10.2017 to 31.03.2018 for C zone area is determined as Rs. 9,230/- per month, and therefore, the wages of the deceased is assessed as Rs. 9,230/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 11. Learned Tribunal has rightly added 40% of the assessed income towards the loss offuture prospects, applied the deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses and applied multiplier of 15 which is in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680. It also awarded total sum of Rs. 15,000/- each under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses and awarded Rs. 40,000/- towards of loss of consortium to claimant No. 1 which is also correct taking note of the decision in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). However, learned Claims Tribunal fell into error in not awarding any amount under the loss of consortium to appellant No. 2 who is minor child of the deceased. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130, appellants No.2 is also entitled for compensation under the head ‘loss of parental consortium’ of Rs.40,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. 12. For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 7 1. (A) Loss of Income/dependency : Rs. 15,50,640/- 9,230 x 12 = 1,10,760/- (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 40% (1,10,760 x 40% =44,304) 1,10,760+ 44,304 = 1,55,064/- (C) Deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses (1,55,064 x 1/3 =51,688) 1,55,064- 51,688 = 1,03,376/- (D) Multiplier of 15 1,03,376 x 15 = Rs. 15,50,640/- Spousal claimant/appellant No.1 (wife) Consortium to : (+) Rs. 40,000 2. 3. 4. Funeral Expenses Loss of Estate 5. Loss of filial consortium to claimant No. 2/appellants No. 2 @ 40,000/- : : (+) Rs. 15,000 (+) Rs. 15,000 (+) Rs. 40,000 Total compensation Rs. 16,60,640/- 13. Now the appellant/claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs. 16,60,640/- instead of Rs.12,46,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 14. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 8 15. There is no provision under the Act of 1988 to award penal interest and therefore, the award of interest @ 9% if award of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not deposited within two months is erroneous and hence not sustainable, it is accordingly set aside. 16. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge amita AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.07.31 11:47:56 +0530