1 - Smt. Priyanka Banjare W/o Late Shri Aneet Singh Banjare, Aged About 20 v. 1 - Surkesh Kurrey S/o Balram Kurrey, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Semariya
Case Details
-1- 2025:CGHC:24218 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 862 of 2020 1 - Smt. Priyanka Banjare W/o Late Shri Aneet Singh Banjare, Aged About 20 Years 2 - Sukhsagar Banjare S/o Late Shri Shobharam Banjare, Aged About 49 Years 3 - Mamta Bai Banjare, W/o Shri Sukhsagar Banjare, Aged About 38 Years All are R/o Village Devgaon, Thana Masturi, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh...............Claimant ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Surkesh Kurrey S/o Balram Kurrey, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Semariya, Thana Nandghat, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh...........(Driver Of Offending Vehicle Traller No. C.G.-4 Z D- 8334) 2 - Smt. Nikita Kukreja, W/o Shri Amit Kukreja, Address- Shop No. F G- 5 C S I D C Complex Siltara Raipur Chhattisgarh...............(Owner Of Offending Vehicle) 3 - The Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office 2nd Floor Rama Trade Centre, In Front Of Rajeev Plaza, Old Hiwa Stand Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh..................(Insurance Company) ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.06.20 11:29:50 +0530
Legal Reasoning
For Appellant (s) behalf of Mr. Bhuvneshwar Singh Rajput, Advocate Mr. Narayan Prasad, Advocate on : -2- For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None appears For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Ishwar Chandra, Advocate _______________________________________________________ Mr. H.S. Patel, Advocate along with S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 16/06/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally. 2. This is the 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, Bilaspur (CG) vide award dated 20th December 2019 passed in Claim Case No.370 of 2019. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 08.12.2018, Aneet Singh Banjare was going from village Masturi to Devgaon while riding his motorcycle at a balanced speed on his side. At that time, driver of the vehicle Trailer no. CG 04 JD-8334 coming from Jairam Nagar, driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently, dashed against motorcycle of Aneet Singh Banjare in which Aneet Singh Banjare suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. Deceased Aneet Singh Banjare, at the time of accident, was 20 years old, who was earning Rs 20,000/- per month by doing business related to Cyber Cafe, photocopy etc. and was maintaining the applicants from the said income. Applicant No. 1 is the wife of the deceased, applicants No. 2 and 3 are the father and mother of the deceased who were dependent on the income of the deceased. Due to untimely death of the -3- deceased, the applicants have been deprived of the income of the deceased, They prayed for compensation amount of Rs. 47,72,640/-. 4. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 have filed their written statement in the case and denied the facts mentioned in the application and alleged that on 08.12.2018, no accident occurred with the vehicle trailer No. CG-04 JD-8334 driven by non-applicant No. 1. On the alleged date of accident, non-applicant No. 1 had a valid driving license. Non-applicant No. 2 had all the valid documents related to the vehicle and the said vehicle was comprehensively insured by non-applicant No. 3 bearing the entire risk. Therefore, non-applicant No. 3 is liable to pay the compensation amount. 5. Non-applicant No.3/insurance company in its written statement, has denied the pleadings and it is further stated that the accident did not happen due to the negligence of the trailer driver, but due to the sole negligence of the deceased motorcyclist Aneet Singh Banjare. At the time of the accident, the driver did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle Trailer. Therefore, non-applicant No.3 is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. The vehicle owner has deliberately violated the conditions of the insurance policy. 6. 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 Aneet Singh Banjare suffered grievous injuries. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found proved, learned Claims Tribunal held non-applicants liable to pay the amount of -4- compensation. Assessing income of the appellant/claimant as Rs7,000/- per month, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.14,81,200/ -. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the learned Claims has awarded meager amount of compensation. Income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs.7,000/- per month only which in the fact of case is on lower side. Deceased was a highly qualified man. He has done his Diploma in Computer Application from Bilaspur University, Bilaspur. Copy of certificate of Diploma in Computer Application is filed as Annexure P-12 and, therefore, the income of deceased cannot be equated as that of unskilled labourer as assessed by learned Claims Tribunal. He also contended that amount of compensation under head ‘loss of consortium’ is also on lower side. Tribunal has not awarded ‘loss of consortium’ to all the three appellants/claimants but has awarded loss of consortium to appellant/claimant No.1 only. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and would submit that amount of compensation as awarded by learned Tribunal, in the facts of the case, is just and proper. Claimants have failed to prove nature of occupation as also income of deceased as pleaded in the claim application. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. 10. To appreciate the submission of learned counsel for the appellants with respect to assessment of income of deceased by learned Tribunal is -5- concerned, true it is that claimants/appellants have not submitted any document to show the running of a Cyber Cafe/shop by the deceased or to show income of deceased from the said Cyber Cafe/shop, if any. Except the oral self statement of appellant/claimant No.1 (widow of deceased), no other documentary evidence has been produced. However, the claimants have produced mark-sheet of 12th Class and Diploma in Computer Application from Bilaspur University as Ex.P-11 and Ex.P-12. 11. In the aforementioned fact of the case, when there is no proof of occupation/income of deceased, income of the deceased is to be assessed on notional basis. Tribunal has rightly taken decision to assess the income of deceased on notional basis, however, to asses income on notional basis, the Tribunal/Courts are required to take into consideration wages prevailing, price index, cost of living, qualification, as also notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 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 for ‘Class-C zone/area’ for ‘skilled labourer’, monthly income has been prescribed as Rs.10,010/- per month. Considering the qualification of the deceased to be Diploma in Computer Application from the Bilaspur University, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased as Rs.10,010/- for highly skilled laourer as per the notification issued by the Competent Authority. It is ordered accordingly. -6- 13. Learned Tribunal has rightly added 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects, applied deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses and applied multiplier of 18 which is in consonance with the 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. It also awarded total sum of Rs.70,000/- under other conventional heads taking note of the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 . However, learned Claims Tribunal fell into error in not awarding any amount under the loss of consortium to appellants No. 2 & 3 who are parents of the deceased. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130, appellants No.2 & 3 are also entitled for compensation under the head ‘loss of filial consortium’ of Rs.40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. 14. For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. (A) Loss of Income/dependency : Rs. 20,18,016 10,010 x 12 = 120120 Addition (B) future prospects @ 40% (120120 x 40% =48048) towards 120120+ 48048 = 1,68,168 (C) Deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses (1,68,168 x 1/3 =56056) 1,68,168- 56056 = 1,12,112/- (D) Multiplier of 18 -7- 1,12,112 x 18 = 20,18,016 2. Consortium Spousal claimant/appellant No.1 (wife) to : (+) Rs. 40,000 3. 4. 5. Funeral Expenses Loss of Estate Loss of filial consortium to claimants/appellants No. 2 & 3 @ 40,000/- each : : (+) Rs. 15,000 (+) Rs. 15,000 (+) Rs. 80,000 Total compensation Rs. 21,68,016 15. Now the appellant/claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs. 21,68,016/- instead of Rs.14,81,200/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 16. Aforementioned total amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% 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 now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.
Decision
17. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen