Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:17402 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 877 of 2020 1 - Smt. Soni Bai W/o Lt. Dwarika Bhatprahari Aged About 26 Years R/o Vill.- Junwani, P.S. - Gidhpuri Palari, District - Balodabazar Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Aashish Kumar S/o Lt. Dwarika Bhatprahari Aged About 6 Years Through Natural Guardian Smt. Soni Bai R/o Vill.- Junwani, P.S. - Gidhpuri Palari, District - Balodabazar Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Rupi Bai W/o Lt. Dasrshenu Bhatprahari Aged About 55 Years R/o Vill.- Junwani, P.S. - Gidhpuri Palari, District - Balodabazar Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh Versus ... Appellants 1 - Servanand Shah S/o Barat Shah R/o Vill. - Parsagadh, P.S. - Akma District Chapara (Bihar), Bihar
Legal Reasoning
2 - M/s Siddhi Vinayak Logistic Ltd. Through - Smt. Saloni Jain W/o Sandeep Jain, R/o Verdhman Nagar, Sadar Bazar, Nagpur, District - Nagpur Mh, District : Nagpur, Maharashtra 3 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through- In Charge Officer, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandari, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Shristhi Upadhyay, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 16/04/2025 2 1. Notice sent to the Respondents No. 1 & 2 returned unserved. 2. Learned counsel for the respective parties do not dispute the fact that the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is jointly and severally and the first liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company. 3. In the aforementioned facts of the case, as the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon the insurance company which is represented by a counsel, notice to the Respondents No. 1 & 2 is dispensed with. 4. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2020 which is an application for condonation of delay of 333 days in filing of the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant as also, the pleadings made in the application. 6. On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application and the submission made by the counsel for the respective parties, I am inclined to allow I.A. No. 01/2020. 7. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2020 is allowed. Delay of 333 days in filing fo the appeal is condoned. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this appeal may be heard finally at the admission stage, as there is no factual dispute. The ground which is raised in this appeal is only with respect to the income assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal and not awarding the amount of compensation towards of loss of consortium to child i.e. Appellant No. 2 and mother of the deceased i.e. Appellant No. 3 as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance 3 Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130. 9. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 submits that there is no dispute with respect to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for grant of loss of consortium to legal representative of the deceased which includes the widow, the children and parents of the deceased. She further submits that the income assessed in the facts and circumstances of the case by the learned Claims Tribunal is on appreciation of the pleadings and evidence. She further submits that no documentary or admissible piece of evidence is brought on record by the appellants to prove engagement of the deceased with Godavari Power Company Limited and hence, the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased treating him to be a labourer. Hence, it does not call for any interference. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant admits that though the claimants in their pleadings have specifically pleaded the engagement of the deceased with Godavari Power Company Limited and earning Rs. 8,000/- per month and it has also been stated by the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants. 11.Considering the submission of the counsel for the respective parties, the appeal is heard finally at the admission stage. 12. This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 29.04.2019 passed by the 5th Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 247/2014. 4 13. The undisputed facts of the case are that the Respondent No. 1 was driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Trailor bearing registration no. GJ 05 AU 5746, the Respondent No. 2 was the owner and Respondent No. 3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. It is also undisputed that on 06.10.2013 at about 06:45 P.M, Dwarika Bhatprahari met with an accident with the above mentioned Trailor being driven by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently and died. The appellant/claimants who are widow child and mother of the deceased have submitted an application under Section 166 for seeking compensation on the ground of death of breadwinner of the family seeking compensation of Rs. 23,44,000/-. 14. The pleadings made in the application was disputed by the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 by submitting their reply. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence brought on record by the respective parties, allowed the claim application in part assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 7,000/- per month on notional basis, treating the deceased to be a Labourer and accordingly, computed the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,02,800/-. 15. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on lower side overlooking the pleadings and evidence brought on record. Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased only Rs. 7,000/- per month instead Rs. 8,000/- per month. However, he fairly submitted that there is no document or any admissible piece of evidence or any independent witnesses examined by the appellants to prove the employment of the deceased with the Godavari Power Company Limited and his income to be Rs. 8,000/- per month. 5 16. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I do not find any error in treating the deceased aged about 30 years and maintaining his family to be working as Labourer for earning his livelihood. The deceased was a resident of Village Junwani, P.S. Gidhpuri Palari, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). In absence of any admissible and clinching piece of evidence, income of the deceased as assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal to be Rs. 7,000/- per month cannot be treated to be erroneous. Accordingly, income assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal is hereby affirmed. 17. Learned counsel for the respective parties do not dispute the fact that the learned Claims Tribunal has applied 40% of the assessed income of the deceased towards future prospects and the application of multiplier to be in accordance with law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121. However, the ground raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded the amount of parental consortium to the Appellant No. 2 and filial consortium to the Appellant No. 3. The award of loss of parental consortium and filial consortium was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nanu Ram (Supra) and held as under:- “22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world- over have recognised that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss 6 of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. 23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count [ Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram v. Sohi Ram, 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 3848 : (2017) 4 RLW 3368; Uttarakhand High Court in Rita Rana v. Pradeep Kumar, 2013 SCC OnLine Utt 2435 : (2014) 3 UC 1687; Karnataka High Court in Lakshman v. Susheela Chand Choudhary, 1996 SCC OnLine Kar 74 : (1996) 3 Kant LJ 570] . However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium.” In the aforementioned facts of the case, learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding the amount of compensation towards loss of parental consortium to the Appellant No. 2 i.e. child and loss of filial consortium to the Appellant No. 3 mother of the deceased. 18. For the foregoing reasons, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation. Thus, in addition to the amount of compensation of Rs. 14,02,800/- already awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal, the claimant/Appellant No. 2 is also entitled for an amount of Rs. 40,000/- as parental consortium and Rs. 40,000/- to the Appellant No. 3 as filial consortium i.e. (Rs. 80,000). Now the 7 appellants/claimants are awarded the total compensation of Rs. 14,82,200/- (14,02,800 + 80,000). 19. The amount of Rs. 80,000/- which is now being awarded additinally shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated by this Court. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 20. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakkamma Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2021) 20 SCC 797, it is directed that the appellant will not be entitled for the interest on the additional amount of compensation for the delayed period, which is 333 days.
Decision
21. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 22. Certified copy as per rules. Dey Sd/--/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge