Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2025:CGHC:17318 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 698 of 2018 1 - Smt. Phoolkumari @ Kumari Bai W/o Harinarayan Sai Aged About 40 Years Caste Kanwar, R/o Village Chetwa, Police Station Kansabel, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, At Present Address 6th Vahini Chhattisgarh Force Urdana Board, Raigarh, Tehsil and District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, 2 - Harinarayan Sai S/o Tilakdhari Sai Aged About 45 Years Occupation Service, Caste Kanwar, R/o Village Chetwa, Police Station Kansabel, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, At Present Address 6th Vahini Chhattisgarh Force Urdana Board, Raigarh, Tehsil and District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Claimants). ... Appellants versus 1 - Abhay Singh S/o Ram Singh Occupation Owner Of Vehicle, R/o Link Road R-2, Janjgir, Tehsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle). 2 - Vinod Kumar Kshatriya S/o Gulab Singh Kshatriya Aged About 26 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Village Kosa, Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle).
Legal Reasoning
3 - Branch Manager Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, 2 Fourth Floor, Maruti Heights G.E.Road, Beside Sky (Maruti) Dealer, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer of The Vehicle). 4 - Smt. Geeta Paikara W/o Late Mahansai D/o Naresh Paikara, R/o Village Dumarbahal, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For the appellants : Mr. Shivendra Bharadwaj, Advocate For respondents 1 & 2 : None For respondent no.3 : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate For respondent no.4 : Ms..Vidhi Matlani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 07/04/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed challenging the award dated 03.05.2017 passed by the learned Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No.122/2015. By the impugned award, the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.8,88,000/- as compensation to the claimants on account of death of deceased Mahansai in an unfortunate accident which took place on 03.02.2013 by rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 2 driver. The said vehicle was owned by respondent no.1 owner and insured with respondent no. 3 /Insurance company. 3 2. As per the pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, the claimants are mother and father of deceased Mahan Sai. On 03.02.2013 the deceased Mahansay was going from Korba to Raipur in Indica Car No. CG 04/HC 3140 and when he reached at Bilha in the night at 2.00 a.m., at that time, Respondent no.2, driving the offending vehicle CG 11/AB 2257 which was coming from Raipur side rashly and negligently coming from Raipur side hit the deceased’s car near Bilha turn due to which Mahansay died on the spot and another person Tapan Chakraborty who was an inmate of the Indica Car, sustained serious injuries. The claimants being legal heirs of deceased filed claim application u/s 166 of MVA stating that the deceased was aged about 22 years and claimed a total compensation of Rs.67,80,000/- on various heads. 3. The learned claims Tribunal considered that the deceased was young man of 22 years of age and was doing the job of driver. The Tribunal took the notional income of deceased as Rs.4500/- per month i.e., @ 150/- per day and thus worked out the annual income as Rs.54,000/- (Rs.4500 x 12). The mother, father and respondent no.4 being wife of deceased (total 3) have been considered as dependents. Thus after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses i.e., 18,000/-, the annual income was worked out to Rs.36,000/- (Rs.54000 – 18,000) and then applied multiplier 18 to assess the total loss of dependency which was worked out to Rs.6,48,000/- (Rs.36,000 x 18). In addition, under other heads Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection; 4 Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of consortium; Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate; Rs.5000/- for mental pain and Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses were granted. Thus a total compensation of Rs.8,88,000/- was granted with interest @ 6% from the date of claim application till the date of payment. 4.1 Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 22 years and was earning Rs.9000/- per month by doing the job of driver, however, the tribunal has wrongly held the monthly income of deceased to be Rs.4,500/- (Rs. 150 per day) and thus calculated the annual income to be Rs.54000/-, which is on much lower side. He further submits that future prospects has not been added to the income for determining the just compensation and prays that since the compensation granted by the Tribunal is meagre, the award may suitably be enhanced. 4.2 It is also contended on behalf of the appellants that the wife Geeta respondent No.4 was divorced from deceased and she will not get any share in the compensation. 5. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 supports the award and submits that the compensation has rightly been awarded and does not require any interference by this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. The tribunal did not accept the ground of divorce in absence of any document and considering respondent no. 4 as wife, awarded in her favour, which is based on correct finding of fact. At the time of accident, deceased Mahansay was an young person of 22 years of 5 age. The Tribunal took the notional income of deceased to be Rs.4500/- per month. As per the minimum wages prevalent in between 01.10.2012 and 31.03.2013 in the State of Chhattisgarh, the minimum wages of unskilled labours should have been fixed at Rs.4646/-. So this Court holds the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.4646/- and not Rs.4500/- as held by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not granted any sum for future prospects. In the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court is computing the following compensation as below: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Monthly income of the deceased 4,646/- (+) 40% future prospects Total Yearly income 6504 x 12 1,858/- 6,504/- 78,048 Personal expenses (1/3rd of income) 26,016 Loss of annual dependency Total loss of dependency (applying multiplier 18) 52,032 x 18 (+) Loss of estate (+)Funeral expenses (+) Loss of love and affection for 3 dependents : 40,000 x 3 52,032 9,36,576/- 15,000/- 15,000/- 1,20,000/- 10. Total compensation Rs. 10,86,576/- 8. Thus the total compensation is recomputed to Rs.10,86,576/- from which after deduction of Rs. 8,88,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.1,98,576/-. 6 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The claimants and respondent no.4 are entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,98,576/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realisation. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 10. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants reside. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge Rao