1 - Nanduram Dhankar S/o Dhanush Dhankar, Aged About 47 Years 2 - Smt v. 1 - Anil K
Case Details
-1- 2025:CGHC:33612 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 896 of 2020 1 - Nanduram Dhankar S/o Dhanush Dhankar, Aged About 47 Years 2 - Smt. Saturpabai Dhankar, W/o Nanduram Dhankar, Aged About 42 Years 3 - Ku. Reshma Dhankar D/o Nanduram Dhankar, Aged About 14 Years 4 - Ku. Damini Dhankar, D/o Nanduram Dhankar, Aged About 13 Years Both Resp. No. 3 & 4 are minors Represented By Natural Guardian Father Nanduram Dhankar, S/o Dhanush Dhankar All R/o Ward No. 5, Village Aalbaras, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh.................Claimants ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Anil Kumar Deshmukh S/o Gaindlal Deshmukh, R/o Village Murmi Para, Aalbaras, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ................Driver 2 - Shiv Nayak, S/o Govind Prasad Nayak, R/o House No. 143/18, Ward No. 37, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ................Owner 3 - Khilendra Kumar Nirmalkar, R/o Village Chandrakhuri, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ............Owner As Per Insurance Policy, Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.08.05 10:23:37 +0530 4 - United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Branch Manager, Address- Station Road, Paras Complex, Thana Mohan Nagar, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh -2- .............Insurance Company ________________________________________________________ ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Utsav Mahishwar, Advocate For Resp No. 1 to 3 : None appears though served For Resp. No. 4 of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate _______________________________________________________ Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf : S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 17/07/2025 1. In this case liability to satisfy the award of compensation is fastened upon respondent No.4/non-applicant No.4 (Insurance Company) which has not been disputed by learned counsel appearing by respondent No.4/Insurance Company, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this appeal is heard finally at admission stage. 2. This is 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 Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to the Court of First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg (CG) vide award dated 04.12.2019 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.237 of 2019. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants filed an application under Sections 166 of the Act of 1988 before the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (CG) pleading therein that on 12.01.2019 at about 10.30 pm, Bhupendra Kumar was going from Sihawa Nagari to his home village – Aalbaras, Balod Road, Drug while working as a conductor/helper in the vehicle -3- Tata 207 No. CG 07/CA 6177 (hereinafter referred as “offending vehicle”) as per the instructions of non-applicants No.1 & 2. On the way, due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non- applicant No.1, it dashed the vehicle Hywa trailer number CG 04/MC 6029 parked on the side of the road from behind. Bhupendra Kumar, who was riding in the vehicle Tata 207, sustained serious injuries on his hands, legs, head and chest. He was taken to Gunderdehi Government Hospital, where doctors declared him dead. At the time of accident, deceased Bhupendra Kumar was unmarried and a healthy and strong young man of 19 years working as conductor/ helper/ cleaner in Tata- 207 vehicle and was warning Rs. 9,000/- per month and the applicants were dependent on him. Appellants/claimants claimed for total compensation of Rs. 52,68,000/- from non-applicants under different heads. 4. Non-applicant No.1 (driver of the vehicle) in his written statement has denied the pleadings made in the claim application and pleaded that accident did not occur due to his negligence, rather on the date of accident, driver of Hywa trailer no. CG 04/MC 6029 stopped his vehicle on the middle of the road, due to which, vehicle Tata 207 collided with the said vehicle. If the Tribunal considers applicants to be entitled to get compensation, in such a situation, since on the date of accident, vehicle Tata 207 was insured with non-applicant No.4/ insurance company, liability to pay amount of compensation to claimants will be upon non-applicant No.4. 5. Non applicant No.2 (owner of the vehicle) in his written statement pleaded that the case has been registered by the police station- -4- Gundardehi on the basis of mere suspicion. On the date of the accident, offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.4/ insurance company, in such a situation, if the claim is proved, the insurance company is liable to pay amount of compensation. 6. Non-applicant No.4/insurance company in its written statement pleaded that deceased was travelling as a passenger in a commercial vehicle in violation of the conditions of insurance policy. No separate premium has been paid for the labourer or conductor of the insured vehicle, only Rs. 100/- premium has been paid for the driver. No document has been presented regarding the deceased getting seriously injured in an accident while working as a helper and to show the relationship between the applicants and the deceased. At the time of the accident, non-applicant No.1 did not have valid and effective licence to drive the heavy vehicle. As the conditions of the insurance policy has been violated, non-applicant No.4/insurance company would not be liable to pay any amount of compensation. 7. 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 non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which Bhupendra Kumar suffered fatal injuries and died. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found proved, held non-applicant No.4/insurance company liable to pay the amount of compensation. Assessing income of the appellant/claimant as Rs.8000/- per month, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.9,04,000/-. -5- 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month overlooking the pleadings made in the claim application. He submits that considering the fact that deceased was aged about 19 years on the date and time of accident, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have added 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects of the deceased. In support of his submission he places reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.4/ Insurance Company vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and would submit that amount awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 11.So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants with regard to assessment of income as Rs.8000/- per month by the Claims Tribunal is concerned, undisputedly, date of accident is 12.01.2019. In the claim application, claimants have pleaded the occupation of deceased of doing work of Conductor/Helper in the vehicle and his income to be Rs.9,000/- per month. True it is that claimants have failed to prove income of deceased by placing admissible piece of evidence, however, in absence of admissible piece of evidence, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of deceased considering the other factors like cost of living, price index, wage rates structure and also -6- minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act for ‘unskilled labourer’ prevailing on the date of accident. 12. For the purpose of assessing income of deceased on notional basis in absence of any specific evidence, this Court finds it appropriate to take help of the Notification issued by the Commissioner-cum-Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. In the Notification issued for the period from 01.10.2018 to 31.03.2019 monthly wages for ‘unskilled labourer’ of ‘A’ zone area has been fixed as Rs.8660/- per month. Hence, looking to the date of accident i.e. 12.01.2019, his place of residence, income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.8660/- per month instead of Rs.8000/- per month as held by learned Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. 13. Learned Claims Tribunal has applied deduction of ½ towards personal and living expenses, multiplier of 18 which is to the tune of 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. 14. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellant with regard to not adding future prospect to the assessed income of deceased is concerned, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has clearly specified that where the deceased was below 40 years, there shall be addition of 40% towards future prospects of the assessed income of the deceased. In the cast at hand, as held by learned Tribunal, deceased on the date of accident was aged about 19 years. Therefore, there shall be addition of 40% towards future prospectus in the assessed income of deceased. It is ordered accordingly. -7- 15. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- under the head 'loss of affection and funeral expenses', which in the facts of the case appears to be not correct. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Pranay Sethi (supra) has specified other conventional heads i.e. loss of estate, funeral expense and loss of consortium and also quantified amount as Rs.15,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively. In case of of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130., Hon'ble Supreme Court has further explained types of consortium and held that parents will be entitled for loss of filial consortium. 16. In the facts of case, claimant will further be entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’, Rs.15,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’ and Rs.40,000/- each to claimants No. 1 & 2 (parents of deceased) towards loss of ‘filial consortium'. It is ordered accordingly. 17.Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has observed that compensation awarded under other conventional heads like ‘loss of estate, ‘funeral expenses’ and ‘consortium’ is to increased by 10% after every three years and, therefore, in the facts of the case, I find it appropriate to increase aforementioned compensation by 20%, which makes the compensation towards ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’ as Rs.18,000/- each and ‘loss of consortium’ as Rs.48,000/- each. 18. For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- -8- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. Loss of Income : Rs. 13,09,392 (A) Income 8660 x 12 = 103920 Addition (B) future prospects @ 40% (103920 x 40% =41568) towards 103920 + 41568 = 1,45,488 (C) Deduction of 1/2 towards personal and living expenses (1,45,488 x 1/2 =72744) 145488- 72744 = 72744 (D) Multiplier of 18 72744 x 18 = 13,09,392 2. Funeral Expenses 3 Loss of Estate 4. Filial Loss of Rs.48,000/- each claimant No.1 &2 (parents) Consortium of to appellant/ : : : (+) Rs. 18,000 (+) Rs. 18,000 (+) Rs. 96,000 (48000 x 2) Total compensation : Rs. 14,41,392 19.Now the appellant/claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs. 14,41,392/- instead of Rs.9,04,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 20. Aforementioned 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 -9- now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Rest of conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.f 2 21. Appeal is accordingly allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- Sd/-/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen