1. Jagdish Prasad S/o Balgovind, Aged About 65 Years 2. Pramod S/o Jagdish Prasad v. 1. Ankita Khalkho S/o Isidor Khalkho Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No. 15
Case Details
SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 1 2025:CGHC:39949 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 888 of 2024 1. Jagdish Prasad S/o Balgovind, Aged About 65 Years 2. Pramod S/o Jagdish Prasad Aged About 35 Years Both resident of Village Goutiyapara, Lalpur, Manendragarh, Distt.- Manedragarh - Chirmiri- Bharatpur (C.G.) Appellants-claimants... versus 1. Ankita Khalkho S/o Isidor Khalkho Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No. 15 , Amakherwa, Manendragarh, Police Station - Manendragarh, Distt.- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) (Driver Of Offending Vehicle CG-16/CM-4418) 2. Deepak Khalkho S/o Isidor Khalkho R/o Ward No. 15, Amakherwa, Manendragarh, Police Station - Manendragarh, Distt.- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) (Owner Of Offending Vehicle CG16/CM-4418) 3. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through - Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Second Floor, Winwe Centre , South Tukoganj, Indore (M.P.) (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Cg-16/cm-4418) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Shekhar Rao Saheb, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 8/8/2025 1. Appellant-claimants have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragar, District Koriya (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 2.4.2024 passed in Claim Case No.06/2023. 2. Facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are that on 24.6.2022 Udasiya along with her husband was returning to her home situated in village Lalpur from Kalyanpur on motorcycle. Her husband was riding motorcycle and she was pillion. At about 5:30 p.m. when they reached near Hasdeo Nursery Forest, one Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No.CG16-CM-4418, coming from Manendragarh side, driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver (non-applicant No.1), dashed the motorcycle as a result she and her husband sustained grievous injuries. They were taken to hospital in Manendragarh from where they were referred to Raipur. She died on 4.7.2022 while undergoing treatment in Medical College Hospital, Raipur. Report of accident was lodged in Police Station Manendragarh based on crime bearing No.356/22 was registered for alleged commission of offence under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A of IPC. Claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor 3 Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking total compensation of Rs.61,50,000/- on the ground that at the time of accident, deceased was 55 years of age, she was engaged in work of making utensils pots as also selling vegetables and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. They were dependent on income of the deceased and due to his sudden death, they have suffered loss of income. 3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2, driver and owner of offending vehicle, filed their joint reply pleading that as the offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3, therefore, responsibility to pay compensation is upon non-applicant No.3. 4. Non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company filed its reply and took a stand that at the time of accident deceased, who was driving offending vehicle, was not holding a valid and effective driving license, which amounts to violation of condition of insurance policy and, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the pleadings and evidence placed on record (oral and documentary both) by respective parties, arrived at a conclusion that, deceased died in a road traffic accident; there was no element of contributory negligence and violation of any condition of insurance policy and consequently, allowed claim application of claimants in 4 part, awarded total compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- under the heads of medical expenses, funeral expenses, loss of consortium and fastened liability to pay the amount of compensation upon non-applicants, jointly and severally. The Claims Tribunal, not awarded compensation under the head of loss of dependency on the ground that major son cannot be considered dependent on mother and husband of deceased has independent source of income, as pleaded in Claim Case No.7/2023 arising out of accident in question. 6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in denying compensation under the head of loss of dependency to appellants. Appellants are legal heirs of deceased, who died in a motor vehicular accident, and it is time and again held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that legal heirs are entitled for compensation under different heads including loss of dependency. He further submits that even if occupation and income of deceased is not established as per law, the Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed income of deceased after taking into consideration multifarious services rendered by deceased to the family and her help in earning to her husband for maintaining the family. He also submits that income of appellant No.1, as pleaded and assessed in Claim Case No.7/2023, could not compensate for the loss of income that was being earned by deceased which was in lieu of 5 services rendered by her to the family and because of her death loss had occasioned to the estate resulting in loss of dependency to appellants. 7. Heard learned counsel for appellant and perused the record. 8. Factum of accident, death of deceased Udasiya in a road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1-driver is not in dispute. Only question for consideration is whether claimants were dependent on deceased or not, so as to award compensation under the head of loss of dependency? 9. Claim application before learned Claims Tribunal was preferred by claimants under Section 166 of the Act of 1988, which envisages that legal representatives of the deceased who died in road accident are entitled to file application for compensation. Said provision does not say that only dependent legal representatives of the deceased, who died in accident, are only entitled to file application for compensation. It also not provides that claimant (s) should be residing with deceased and should not have independent source of income. Thus, it is clear that legal representatives of the deceased, which could be major married and earning sons of deceased, have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned 6 legal representative was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. 10. In case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Birender and others, reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356, the question for consideration was whether major sons of deceased, who are married and gainfully employed or earning, can claim compensation and Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided that major children of deceased are also entitled for compensation under the head loss of dependency. Relevant part of the said decision is extracted below for ready reference:- “14.It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. The evidence on record in the present case would suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre income between Rs.1,00,000/ and Rs.1,50,000/ per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependant on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years." 7 11. In view of above specific provision contained under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 and in light of above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the considered opinion of this Court, merely claimant No.2/appellant No.2 herein is major son of deceased cannot be a ground to hold that he is not entitled for compensation under the head of loss of dependency unless it is proved something more that he is having handsome income. Hence, the finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal that claimant-appellant No.2 being major son could not be considered dependent on deceased is not sustainable and it is hereby set aside. 12. Finding of learned Claims Tribunal that claimant No.1- husband being earning member having income of Rs.30,000/- per annum, cannot be considered to be dependent on deceased dis-entitling him for compensation under the head of loss of dependency, is absolutely misconceived and therefore not acceptable. Merely because surviving spouse is employed/ earning cannot be a reason alone for holding that he or she was not dependent. If such a finding is accepted, no husband/wife would be entitled to the compensation, if he/she is earning and his wife/husband has expired in a motor vehicular accident. Spouse depends upon each other for so many reasons including their company to each other which is needed more when they become older. 8 13. In somewhat similar situation, the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in MACA No. 210/2015 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Preetha Krishnan), decided on 28.6.2024 and reported in MANU/KE/2273/2024, referring to decision of the Division Bench in case of Thomas George P. and ors vs. O. Santha and ors, reported in MANU/KE/0776/2016, has observed thus:- “19. In the decision Thomas George P. and ors vs. O. Santha and ors [2016 (4) KHC 237), a Division Bench of this Court held that, pure financial dependency cannot be the sole yardstick to decide the entitlement of compensation under the head loss of dependency. An employee having permanent income, by that reason alone will not become disentitled, to claim compensation for loss of dependency, on the death of his/her employed or unemployed spouse. 20. In Thomas George’s case cited supra, this Court further observed that, when two persons of opposite gender enter into a connubial relationship certainly mutual dependency would also begin. The dependency on the other would get more and more, when they get older and older. Therefore, in the case of a widow/ widower, he/she should be presumed to have been required to depend on the other, during the whole of life time, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary and how long the deceased could have supported, certainly would depend upon the estimate of expectancy of his/her future span of 9 life. In the case of a widow/ widower, he or she should be presumed to have been required to depend on the other, during the rest of his life. Such dependency is certainly one which is in addition to financial dependency and even independent of it viz., in the absence of such dependency the right to get compensation for the loss of services, as mentioned hereinbefore, has to be equated in terms of money for the said purpose. In such circumstances, merely because the surviving spouse is employed cannot be a reason for holding that he or she would not have been required to depend on the other during the rest of his life and therefore, disentitled to get compensation under the aforesaid head. 21. In the case of death of one of the spouses in a motor vehicle accident, the surviving spouse, even if employed, would be entitled to get compensation under the head loss of dependency. When they are living together as husband and wife, even if either or both of them are employed, they are inter-dependant on each other. If the surviving spouse is entitled for compensation for loss of dependency, then of course he/she has to be treated as a dependant of the other.” 14. In view of above, I am of the considered view that when the husband and wife were staying together, and were inter- dependent on each other, even if the husband is earning income, that will not take away his right to get compensation under the head of loss of dependency on account of death of 10 his wife in a road traffic accident. Accordingly, it is held that appellant No.1 husband is entitled to claim compensation not only under conventional heads but also under the head of loss of dependency and therefore, this Court proceeds to compute the compensation payable towards loss of dependency on account of death of deceased Udasiya in the road traffic accident as follows. 15. Claimants failed to prove occupation and income of deceased as per law and therefore, the Claims Tribunal held that deceased was not earning lady and considering the contribution which is made by a housewife to the family, fixed her income at Rs.7,500/- per month, which is not correct. Recently, in case of Arvind Kumar Pandey and others vs. Girish Pandey, reported in (2025) 2 SCC 145, it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that the direct or indirect income of a homemaker cannot be less than prevailing Minimum Wages of the State at the time of the accident. Similar view has been reiterated by different High Courts of the country that Minimum Wages of an unskilled worker, of the State where the deceased homemaker was residing, can be used to determine the notional income. Thus, in the present case, in absence of any evidence regarding educational qualification and contribution of deceased in the household, the Minimum wages prevailing at the time of the accident notified by the 11 State, would be the appropriate method to assess pecuniary loss of claimants-appellants. Accident occurred on 24.6.2022 and deceased was resident of District Manendragarh-Chirmir- Bharatpur, which falls within Zone-C area. As per notification issued by competent authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 minimum wage rate for an unskilled worker of Zone-C area for the period from 1.4.2022 to 30.9.2022 was Rs.9,280/- per month. Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to assess notional monthly income of deceased as Rs.9,280/-. It is ordered accordingly. 16. Since the deceased was 55 years old at the time of accident, there shall be addition of 10% towards future prospects and appropriate multiplier applicable would be ‘9’. Considering the number of dependent family members survived by deceased i.e. two, including husband, there shall be deduction of one-third towards personal and living expenses of deceased. Apart from this, appellants will also be entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards spousal and parental consortium respectively. They will also be entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- each for funeral expenses and loss of estate. 17. Since, the amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate, is to be increased by 10% after every three years in light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National 12 Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, therefore, appellants will be entitled to get Rs.44,000/- each for loss of spousal and parental consortium respectively; Rs.16500/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses respectively. It is ordered accordingly. 18. Consequently, the income of deceased is taken as Rs.9,280/- per month and after adding 10% of assessed income towards future prospects, total income comes to Rs.10,208/- and annual income comes to Rs.1,22,496/-. Out of this, one-third is to be deducted towards personal expenses of deceased and after deducting one-third, net income comes to Rs.81,664/-. Applying multiplier of 9 to it, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs.7,34,796/-. Besides this, appellant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards spousal consortium; appellant No.2 is entitled for a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards parental consortium. In addition to aforesaid amount, appellants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.16,500/- for funeral expenses and Rs.16,500/- for loss of estate. Appellants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.32,076/- towards medical expenses, as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. Thus, total amount of compensation for which now appellants-claimants are entitled, comes to Rs.8,88,052/- The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of application till actual payment is made. 13 Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount disbursed to appellants pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted from the amount of compensation as awarded above. 19.In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. roshan/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge