Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:15122 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 875 of 2019 1 - Shiv Shankar Lader, S/o Harish Chandra, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Khadafdipara, Ward No. 19 Janjgir Tahsil - Janjgir, Thana - Janjgir District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Jawa Bai, W/o Shiv Shankar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Khadafdipara Ward No. 19 Janjgir Tahsil - Janjgir , Thana - Janjgir District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chandrashekhar Lader, S/o Shiv Shankar, Aged About 15 Years Minor, Through Legal Guardian Father Shiv Shankar Lader S/o Harish Chandra, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Khadafdipara Ward No. 19 Janjgir Tahsil - Janjgir , Thana - Janjgir District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Kajal, D/o Shiv Shankar, Aged About 11 Years, Minor Through Legal Guardian Father Shiv Shankar Lader, S/o Harish Chandra, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Khadafdipara Ward No. 19 Janjgir Tahsil - Janjgir , Thana - Janjgir District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. versus ... Appellants 1 - Ramesh Dhiwar, S/o Mannu Lal Dhiwar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Banari Thana And Tahsil - Janjgir - District - Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh……………. (Driver ) 2 - Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Janjgir Office District Panchayat Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh…….State Govt. 3 - Chhattisgarh Govt. Through The Collector, Janjgir Champa District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh. ………..State ... Respondents For Appellants :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. T.R. Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vikash Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 For Respondent No.2 & 3 : : 2 None Mr. D.C. Verma, Advocate (Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey) Judgment on Board 28.03.2025 1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 23.12.2017 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the “Tribunal”), Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), in Claim Case No.78/2017 awarding a compensation of Rs.9,24,895/- in favour of the appellants/claimants for the death of Rupesh Kumar (since deceased). 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 05.09.2011, deceased Rupesh Kumar, on the instruction of his employer, went to Bilaspur in vehicle Maruti Van bearing registration No.CG- 12-D-5141 and in the mid night of 05-06/09/2011 was returning from Janjgir-Champa. At the relevant time, on 06.09.2011 at around 2.00 AM, one vehicle Tata Sumo bearing registration No. CG-02-2764 coming from opposite side driven by respondent No.1 herein, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the Maruti Van of deceased near Banari – Laxmi Bore-well, as a result of which deceased Rupesh Kumar sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, deceased Rupesh Kumar was taken to District Hospital, 3 Janjgir from where looking to gravity of his injuries he was referred to CIMS, Bilaspur. Deceased Rupesh Kumar remained hospitalized in the CIMS Bilaspur from 06.09.2011 to 07.09.2011, thereafter in KIMS, Bilaspur from 07.09.2011 to 12.09.2011 and thereafter in Bheemrao Ambedkar Hospital, from where he was discharged on 19.09.2011. Thereafter, on 19.09.2011 at around 11.15 PM, deceased Rupesh Kumar breath his last in District Hospital, Janjgir- Champa. 3. Upon receiving the information of the accident, FIR was lodged against driver/respondent No.1- Ramesh Dhiwar under Crime No.488/2011 in Police Station – Janjgir. Thereafter, as deceased Rupesh Kumar died during the treatment, after thorough investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional Court against the driver/respondent No.1-Ramesh Dhiwar under Section 279, 337, 304-A of IPC and Sections 130(3)/177, 146/196 of the M.V. Act. 4. A claim case was filed by the appellants/claimants, who happen to be the legal heir of the deceased claiming a compensation of Rs.45,98,000/- inter alia pleading that the deceased at the relevant time was aged about 19 years, he was driver and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. 5. Pleading of the claimant have, however, been denied by the 4 respondents No. 1 and 2 except admitted fact. 6. After evaluating the evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal recorded its finding that since the offending vehicle was Govt. vehicle, respondent No.1 as driver and respondent No.2 – Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Janjgir and respondent No.3 – Chhattisgarh Government are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the applicants due to representative responsibility, and awarded the compensation of Rs.9,24,895/- along with interest @ 8% per annum in favour of the appellant/claimants taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month and Rs.72,000/- per annum, applying the multiplier of 15 and deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in law in awarding less compensation to the claimants. The learned Tribunal while awarding compensation has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- and it ought to have assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- P.M. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Tribunal has committed grave error in not considering 40% future prospect in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in 5 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar and Ors. reported in 2014 (5) SCC 330 and Neeta W/o Kallappa Kadolkar & Ors. Vs. Divisional Manager, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation reported in 2015 (3) SCC 590. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Tribunal has also committed error in applying the multiplier of 15 in place of 18 in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sheththy and Ors. reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Tribunal has also awarded less compensation under the other heads. Thus, the appeal may be allowed enhancing the compensation suitably. 8. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased and he was under drunken condition, as such, the deceased himself responsible for the said accident and therefore, the present is a case of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Learned counsel further submits that the appellants/claimants have not arrayed the Insurance Company as party respondent. While passing the impugned award the learned Tribunal has only exercised its respective powers as judicial authority as per the provisions contained in the M.V. Act. While acting under its statutory judicial 6 authority, it has acted with utmost diligence, sincerity and impartiality to the best of its ability and understanding, and therefore, the answering respondent do not require to defend its action by filing due return tot he petition. The impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper according to the guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court, which does not call for any interference. Thus, the appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 10. The learned Tribunal recorded its finding that the claimants have not adduced any income certificate of deceased but they have stated and led evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by working as driver and thus assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per months and Rs.72,000/- per annum, deduction towards personal expenses, considering loss of dependency and awarding sum of Rs.60,000/- under other conventional heads like funeral expenses, love and affection and loss of estate, awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.9,24,895/-, but it has committed error in not awarding any sum under the head filial consortium in view of decision of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. The Supreme Court 7 in the matter of Pranay Sethi (Supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. Thus, keeping in view all these things, above discussion and in view of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court is of the view that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side and requires reconsideration. The claimants/appellants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Head Awarded by Tribunal Awarded by this Court Income 72,000/- (Rs.6,000/- per month x 12) 72,000/- (Rs.6,000/- per month x 12) Future Prospect Nil Nil Deduction towards living and personal expenses Rs. 18,000/- (1/4th of 72,000/-) Rs. 18,000/- (1/4th of 72,000/-) Total Loss of Dependency Rs.54,000/- (72,000– 18,000) Rs.54,000/- (72,000 – 18,000) Multiplier applied 15 15 Loss of Future Income Rs.8,10,000 (Rs.54,000 x 15) Rs.8,10,000 (Rs.54,000 x 15) Medical Expenses Towards conventional head like funeral expenses, loss of estate, love & affecton Rs.54,895/- Rs.54,895/- Rs.60,000/- Towards Filial Consortium to claimant No.1 - Rs.40,000/-/ Towards Filial Consortium to claimant No.2 – Rs.40,000/- love and Towards affection to claimant No.3 - Rs.40,000/- 8 love and Towards affection to claimant No.4 – Rs.40,000/- Towards last rites – Rs.15,000/- Towards Expenses – Rs.15,000/- Funeral Total Rs.1,90,000/- Total Compensation awarded Rs. 9,24,895/- Rs.10,00,000/- 11. Thus, the total compensation including the amount awarded on conventional heads comes to Rs.10,00,000/- i.e. (9,24,895 + 1,90,000/-) for which the claimants are entitled to receive as compensation, is just and proper, for the death of deceased Rupesh Kumar. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.9,24,895/-, after deducting the same the claimants/appellants are entitled for enhanced amount of Rs.75,105/-. This additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. The amount received by the claimants, if any, shall be adjusted in the enhanced sum. 12. Appeal is thus allowed in part with the modification in the award impugned as indicated above. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE