2 - Sanjeev S/o Lt. Dr. B.L. Gupta, Aged About 37 Years 3 v. 1 - Rajkumar S/o Gopi Valecha, R/o Chakarbhata Camp, P.S. Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur Chhattisgar
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:18534 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 1 - Smt. Krishna W/o Lt. Dr. B.L. Gupta, Aged About 53 Years MAC No. 916 of 2020 2 - Sanjeev S/o Lt. Dr. B.L. Gupta, Aged About 37 Years 3 - Rajeev S/o Lt. Dr. B.L. Gupta Aged About 36 Years 4 - Ku. Renu D/o Lt. Dr. B.L. Gupta, Aged About 31 Years All are Permanently R/o House No. AL-116, in Front Of Jain International School, Aasma Colony, Village And Post Sakri, P.S. Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Appellants versus 1 - Rajkumar S/o Gopi Valecha, R/o Chakarbhata Camp, P.S. Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G.-10-C-5514) 2 - Smt. Chanda, W/o Mukesh Mathani, R/o Main Road Chakarbhata, P.S. Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G.-10- C-5514) 3 - Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Officer Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle No. C.G.-10-C- 5514) For Appellants For Respondent No.2 For Respondent No.3 BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.04.28 16:50:13 +0530 --- Respondents
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Satyendra Shrivas, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate : None present though served. : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.N. Pusty, Advovcate 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 24/04/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.1, which is an application for condonation of delay of 397 days in filing the appeal. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposes the application and the submission made on behalf of appellants. He however, submits that if this Court considers to condone the delay then it may be ordered that appellants will not be entitled for the interest for delayed period. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision in case of Lakkamma Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2021) 20 SCC 797. 3. Considering the pleadings made in the application as also the submission of learned counsel for respective parties I find it appropriate to allow the I.A. No.1, and condone the delay in filing this appeal. Accordingly, the I.A. No.1 is allowed and the delay of 397 days in filing this appeal is condoned. The appeal is admitted for hearing. 4. Learned counsel for respective parties submits that the liability to indemnify the amount of compensation is fastened upon respondent No.3/Insurance Company, hence with the consent of the parties, the case is heard finally at motion stage. 5. Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Additional 3 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 02.03.2019 passed in Claim Case No.307/2017 thereby allowing application in part and awarded Rs.62,08,979/- as compensation in a death case. 6. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 05.04.2017 at about 12.30 o’clock at Main Road Tifra, Police Station Sirgitti, District - Bilaspur, respondent No.1 by driving the offending vehicle Swaraj Mazda (Metador) bearing registration No.C.G.-10-C/5514 in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motor cycle of Dr. B.L. Gupta due to which he suffered severe injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 7. Appellants/claimants being the legal heirs of deceased, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.2,46,70,000/- pleading therein that at the time of accident, the deceased was 54 years of age, posted as Senior Veterinary Doctor at Government Veterinary Hospital and was getting monthly salary of Rs.1,30,000/-. It was pleaded that the appellants were dependents upon the deceased. Claimants had also sought compensation under all other heads as are available to them like loss of future income, for love and affection and loss of consortium etc. 8. Respondents No.1 and 2 remained ex-parte before the Claims Tribunal. 9. Non-applicant No.3/Insurer of the offending truck denied entire allegation made in the claim application. It was pleaded that the accident occurred due to self negligence of the motorcyclist, who was driving the said motor cycle without having valid driving licence. The 4 insurer of the motor cycle was not made as party respondents. It was further pleaded that offending vehicle was being driven in violation of insurance policy, without any permit and fitness. Application was filed exaggerating the amount of compensation. The respondent No.3 is not liable to indemnify the insured. 10. Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, the learned Claims Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non- applicant No.1, due to which deceased suffered grievous injuries and died. Breach of Policy condition was not found to be proved. Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.62,08,979/- along with interest @ 8% per annum, fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation. 11. Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in deducting the amount of Rs.24,543/- towards house rent allowance from the annul salary of the deceased. He also contended that appellants No.2 to 4, who are the children of the deceased, have not been awarded loss of parental consortium as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. He prays that amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation on 5 each and every head in the facts of the case. It is submitted that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of facts and evidence brought on record by the respective parties, which does not call for any interference. 13. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 14. The learned counsel for the appellants has raised short issue of non- awarding the amount towards loss of consortium to the appellants No.2 to 4, who are children of the deceased and further erroneous deduction of Rs.24,543/- of house rent allowance which was being paid to deceased from the annual salary, while computing the total annual income of the deceased. 15. So far as the grant of loss of consortium to the children is concerned, it is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (supra), in which it has held that the consortium to be of three types i.e. loss of spousal consortium, loss of parental consortium and loss of filial consortium. The children of the deceased are entitled for compensation under the head of parental consortium @ Rs.40,000/- each. The learned Claims Tribunal has erred in not awarding the amount of Rs.40,000/- each to respondents No.2 to 4 towards loss of parental consortium, which is erroneous in the facts of the case and as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (supra), it is ordered that the appellant No.2 to 4 shall be entitled for loss of parental consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. 16. So far as the deduction of Rs. 24,543/- towards house rent allowance 6 from the salary of the deceased, the inclusion of allowances paid to the deceased government servant in the salary, has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Meenakshi Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1872. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the decision rendered in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nalini (Special Leave to Appeal C No. 4230 of 2019 decided on 11th July, 2024) held that allowances under the heads of transport allowance, house rent allowance, provident fund loan, provident fund and special allowance ought to be added while considering the basic salary of the victim/deceased to arrive at the dependency factor and held thus :- “10. Therefore, components of house rent allowance, flexible benefit plan and company contribution to provident fund have to be included in the salary of the deceased while applying the component of rise in income by future prospects to determine the dependency factor. The Accident Claims Tribunal was justified in factoring these components into the salary of the deceased, before applying 50% rise by future prospects due to future prospects, while calculating the total compensation payable to the appellant.” 17. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in deducting Rs.24,543/- from the salary of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the amount of dependency, hence, the said finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal is set- aside and it is held that house rent allowance of Rs.24,543/- is to be 7 added in the annual salary of deceased for the purpose of calculating the loss of dependency. It is ordered accordingly. 18. The learned Claims Tribunal after deducting Rs.89,662/- towards income tax and Rs. 24,543/- of house rent allowance from the annual salary of Rs.10,84,795/-, assessed the annual dependency at Rs. 9,70,000/-. Therefore, by adding the house rent allowance of Rs. 24,543/- in the income of the deceased, the total loss of annual dependency works out to Rs. 9,94,543/-. 19. Addition of 15% towards future prospects, deduction of ½ towards personal expenses and application of multiplier of 11 has been properly applied by by the learned Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case, which does not call for any interference. 20. Learned Claims Tribunal has also awarded Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, which also does not call for any interference. Learned learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium to appellant No.1 only, whereas as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (supra), each claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, it is ordered that appellants No.2 to 4 are also entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium. 21. For the forgoing discussions the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellants required recomputation, which is as under :- 8 SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Annual income : 9,94,543.00 2. Addition of 15% towards : 9,94,543.00 + 1,49,181.00 = 11,43,724.00 future prospects 3. ½ deduction personal expenses towards : 11,43,724.00 – 5,71,862.00 = 5,71,862.00 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 11 5. For loss of consortium to to 4 appellants No.1 (spousal & parental) of Rs.40,000/- each 6. For loss of estate 7. For funeral expenses Total compensation : 62,90,484.00 : 1,60,000.00 : : : 15,000.00 15,000.00 64,80,484.00 22.
Decision
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.64,80,484.00. Any amount paid to the appellant as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 23. It is further directed that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Lakkamma (supra), the appellants will not be entitled for the interest on the additional amount of compensation for the delayed period, which is of 397 days. 9 24. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram