Nafr High Court
Case Details
-1- Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 569 of 2021 1 - Ameen Banjare W/o Late Ajay Das Banjare, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Ramhepur, P.S. Kawardha, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), 2 - Sandhya Banjare D/o Late Ajay Das Banjare, Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Natural Guardion Mother Ameen Banjare W/o Late Ajay Das Banjare, R/o Village Ramhepur, P.S. Kawardha, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh, 3 - Maheshwari Banjare D/o Late Ajay Das Banjare, Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Natural Guardion Mother Ameen Banjare W/o Late Ajay Das Banjare, R/o Village Ramhepur, P.S. Kawardha, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh, 4 - Pankaj Banjare S/o Late Ajay Das Banjare, Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Natural Guardion Mother Ameen Banjare W/o Late Ajay Das Banjare, R/o Village Ramhepur, P.S. Kawardha, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh, 5 - Sharda Banjare D/o Late Ajay Das Banjare, Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Natural Guardion Mother Ameen Banjare W/o Late Ajay Das Banjare, R/o Village Ramhepur, P.S. Kawardha, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh Kawardha Chhattisgarh, (Kabirdham), District : 6 - Sameer Banjare S/o Late Ajay Das Banjare, Aged About 7 Years Minor -2- Through Natural Guardion Mother Ameen Banjare W/o Late Ajay Das Banjare, R/o Village Ramhepur, P.S. Kawardha, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh, 7 - Sahodra Bai W/o Awadhram Banjare, Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Ramhepur, P.S. Kawardha, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh, 8 - Awadhram Banjare S/o Bhagoli Banjare, Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Ramhepur, P.S. Kawardha, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh --- Appellants versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Balram S/o Shankarlal Shriwas, Aged About 30 Years R/o Jevra, P.S. Khamhariya, District Bemetara, Present Address Ramnagar Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 2 - Shobharam Banjare S/o Mehatar Ram, Aged About 48 Years R/o Mudiyapara, P.S. Bodla, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh)........Owner, District : Kawardha Chhattisgarh (Kabirdham), 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Near Railway Station, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.......Insurer, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 406 of 2021 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Near Railway Station, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Note - Through Branch Manager Is Not Mentioned In Impugned Order) (Insurance Company), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant Versus 1 - Aamin Banjare, W/o Late Ahay Das Banjare, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Ramhepur, Police Station - Kawardha, Tahsil - Bodla, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. (Claimant No. 1), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh -3- 2 - Sandhya Banjare, D/o Late Ajay Das Banjare, Aged About 14 Years Minor, Through Their Legal Guardian Respondent No.1, R/o Village Ramhepur, Police Station - Kawardha, Tahsil - Bodla, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. (Claimant No. 2), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 3 - Maheshwari Banjare, D/o Late Ajay Das Banjare, Aged About 13 Years Minor, Through Their Legal Guardian Respondent No.1, R/o Village Ramhepur, Police Station - Kawardha, Tahsil - Bodla, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. (Claimant No. 3), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 4 - Pankaj Banjare, S/o Late Ajay Das Banjare, Aged About 11 Years Minor, Through Their Legal Guardian Respondent No.1, R/o Village Ramhepur, Police Station - Kawardha, Tahsil - Bodla, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. (Claimant No. 4), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 5 - Sharda Banjare, D/o Late Ajay Das Banjare, Aged About 8 Years Minor, Through Their Legal Guardian Respondent No.1, R/o Village Ramhepur, Police Station - Kawardha, Tahsil - Bodla, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. (Claimant No. 5), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 6 - Samir Banjare, S/o Late Ajay Banjare, Aged About 7 Years Minor, Through Their Legal Guardian Respondent No.1, R/o Village Ramhepur, Police Station - Kawardha, Tahsil - Bodla, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. (Claimant No. 6), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 7 - Sahodra Bai, W/o Awadhram Banjare, Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Ramhepur, Police Station - Kawardha, Tahsil - Bodla, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. (Claimant No. 7), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 8 - Awadhram Banjare, S/o Bhagoli Banjare, Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Ramhepur, Police Station - Kawardha, Tahsil - Bodla, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. (Claimant No. 8), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 9 - Balram, S/o Shankarlal Shrivas, Aged About 30 Years R/o Jewra, Police Station - Khamhariya, District - Bemetara, Present Resident - Ramnagar, Kawardha, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 10 - Shobharam Banjare, S/o Mehtar Ram, Aged About 48 Years R/o. Village Mudiyapara, Police Station - Bodla, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh (Owner), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh -4- --- Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellants/Claimants in MAC/569/2021 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate, For Appellant/Insurance Company : Mr. Anumesh Shrivastava, Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate holding the brief of Advocate For Respondent(s)/Driver & Owner : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate, For Respondent No.3 in MAC/569/2021 : Mr. Anumesh Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25.09. 2025 1) These two appeals arise out of the award dated 06.03.2021 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham in Claim Case No.02/2019, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹ 14,40,880/- with interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Ajay Das Banjare. 2) MAC No.569/2021 has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, whereas MAC No.406/2021 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of award. -5- 3) The brief facts of the case are that on 22.11.2018, at about 8 p.m., the deceased Ajay Das Banjare, was going from Bodla to Ramhepur on his motorcycle and at the same time Balram (Driver) by driving the tractor (CG-08-P-6342) in rash and negligently manner, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. Consequently, the deceased Ajay Das Banjare, sustained grievious injury and succumb to the injuries. The claimants pleaded that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 30 years, he was working as Driver and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The driver, owner and insurance company filed reply to the claim application. The insurance company specifically took a plea that according to the driving license placed on record by the claimants, date of birth of the deceased is 05.03.1980 (38 years). The learned claims Tribunal framed issues and thereafter, passed award. 4) Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would argue that as per the driving license of deceased, his date of birth is 05.03.1980 and thus, on the date of accident, he was aged about 38 years, whereas, the learned Tribunal has considered his age 28 years and finding recorded by the learned Tribunal with regard to the age of the deceased appears to be erroneous. He would further -6- contend that there was head on collision between the offending vehicle (driven by Balram/Driver) and the motorcycle (driven by the deceased) and this fact is evident from the site plan prepared by the Police (Ex. A/4), but issue of contributory negligence has not been considered by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has passed award on hypothetical consideration; thus, he would pray to set aside the award. 5) Mr. Pravesh Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would argue that the age of the deceased was 30 years and in the post mortem report it is mentioned as 28 years. He would contend that in the evidence, the claimants have categorically stated that age of the deceased at the time accident was 30 years, therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly considered the age of the deceased 28 years and accordingly applied multiplier and granted compensation. With regard to contributory negligence, he would submit that no issue was framed by the learned Tribunal and no evidence was led by the Insurance Company to prove the factum of the contributory negligence. 6) Mr. Pravesh Sahu, would further submit that the learned Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased Rs.6,000/- per month, whereas, the deceased was driver and driving license was placed on record. He would submit that even in absence of evidence, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the notional monthly income of the -7- deceased according to the minimum wages matrix payable to the skilled labour in the month of November, 2018 which was Rs.9,570/-. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for loss of consortium to wife of the deceased only and left minor children and parents. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly. 7) Mr. Basant Dewangan, learned counsel appearing for the Driver and Owner would oppose the submission made by Mr. Sahu and submit that learned Tribunal has passed just and proper award. 8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 9) The driving license of the deceased is a part of record though it has not been exhibited but it reveals that date of birth of the deceased is 05.03.1980. The driving license was issued by the Chhattisgarh Transport Department to drive transport and light motor vehicle. The learned Tribual has considered the age of the deceased 28 years placing reliance on the post mortem report (Ex. A/6). 10) The age of the deceased’s daughter is 14 years. The learned Tribunal ought to have considered this fact along with driving license of the deceased to ascertain age. 11)Taking into consideration driving license issued by the CG Transport -8- Department, I have no hesitation to hold that at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 38 years and the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal in this regard are erroneous and hereby set-aside. 12) With regard to the issue of contributory negligence, the learned Tribunal has not framed any issue. 13) Perusal of the evidence led by the Insurance Company would show that no piece of evidence was led by it to prove factum of contributory negligence. This plea has been taken by the company before this Court only on the basis of document i.e. site map prepared by the Police. 14) Considering the fact that the insurance company failed to adduce evidence with regard to factum of contributory negligence, therefore, the contention made by Mr. Shrivastava with regard to the contributory negligence is hereby rejected. 15) Perusal of the award would show that the learned Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased Rs.6,000/- per month and undisputedly, the deceased was a Driver, a valid driving license was issued in his favour to drive transport vehicle & Light Motor Vehicle, therefore, it can be presumed that he was a skilled laour and the learned Tribunal ought to have assessed the notional income according to the minimum wages matrix for the month of November, 2018. The minimum wages payable to the skilled labour in the month of November, 2018 was Rs. 9,570/-; thus, -9- the learned Tribunal committed error of law while assessing the notional income of the deceased. Further, the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation to the children and parents of the deceased for loss of consortium. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, the claimants would be entitled to get additional 20 % sum on compensation for loss of consortium. 16) The learned Tribunal further committed error of law by considering the age of the deceased 28 years whereas, it should be 38 years. 17) Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, the compensation is being revisited herein below:- Sl. No. Head Amount ( )₹ 1 2 3 4 5 6 Notional monthly income (minimum wages — skilled) (Nov 2018) 9,570.00 Future prospects @ 40% (age 38 40%) → add 9,570 × 40% = 9,570 × 0.40 Total monthly income (with future prospects) 9,570 + 3,828 3,828.00 13,398.00 Annual income 13,398 × 12 1,60,776.00 Deduction for personal expenses (1/5th for 8 dependents) Net annual dependency (after deduction) 1/5 of 1,60,776 = 1,60,776 × 0.20 1,60,776 − 32,155.20 32,155.20 1,28,620.80 -10- Head Multiplier (age 38) Loss of dependency Loss of estate Funeral expenses Sl. No. 7 8 9 10 Amount ( )₹ × 15 1,929,312.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 1,28,620.80 × 15 -- -- Loss of Consortium 48,000 x 7 3,36,000.00 11 Loss of dependency + estate + funeral expenses+ Loss of Consortium 1,929,312 + 15,000 + 15,000+3,36, 000 22,95,312.00 12 Total compensation Rs.22,95,312.00 Since the learned Tribunal has already awarded a sum of 14,40,880/- ₹ , the claimants are entitled to an additional payment of 8,54,432/- ₹ (Rupees Eight Lakh Fifty-Four Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty-Two only), with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till its realization.
Decision
18) In the result, the appeals preferred by the Claimants and Insurance Company are allowed in part. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim