Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2025:CGHC:13896 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 967 of 2019 1 - Aruni W/o Sahdev Mahant, aged about 31 years, R/o Dhangardeepa, Rambhantha Raigarh, P.S.-City Kotwali, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.). 2 - Minor Ranjit S/o Late Sahdev, aged about 14 years, Occupation Student R/o Dhangardeepa, Rambhantha Raigarh, P.S.-City Kotwali, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.). 3 - Ku. Varsha D/o Late Sahdev, aged about 17 years, Occupation Student R/o Dhangardeepa, Rambhantha Raigarh, P.S.-City Kotwali, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Pyarelal S/o Kanchan Das Mahant, aged about 70 years, Occupation not known R/o Dhangardeepa, Rambhantha Raigarh, P.S.-City Kotwali, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Kevra Bai W/o Pyarelal, aged about 65 years, R/o Dhangardeepa, Rambhantha Raigarh, Occcupation not known, R/o Dhangardeepa, Rambhantha Raigarh, P.S.-City Kotwali, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellants/Claimants Versus 1 - Suryanath Singh S/o Triloki Singh, aged about 36 years, Occupation- Vehicle Driver, R/o Village-Tilak Nagar, Bondamuda, Raurkela, P.S. & Tahsil Raurkela, Dist. Sundergarh (Odisha) 2 - Basant Kumar Verma S/o Mahaveer Prasad Verma, aged about 50 years, Occupation Vehicle Owner, R/o Shakuntala Niwas, Biras Dahar Road, Raurkela, District Sundergarh (Orissa). 2 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Raigarh, R/o Rahul Complex, 3rd Floor, O.P. Jindal Road, Jagatpur (Above Axis Bank), Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Sanjay S/o Pyarelal aged about 32 years, Occupation not known. R/o Dhangardeepa, Rambhantha Raigarh, P.S.-City Kotwali, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Mahesh S/o Pyarelal, aged about 30 years, occupation not known. R/o Dhangardeepa, Rambhantha Raigarh, P.S.-City Kotwali, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellants : For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : For Respondent No. 3
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Manish Kumar Sahu, on behalf of Mr. Awadh TripathiI, Advocate. Mr. Aakash Shrivastava, Advocate. : Mr. Suraj Patel, on behalf of Mr. R.N. Pusty, Advocate. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 22.03.2025. 1. The Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Claimants/appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') questioning the legality and propriety of the award dated 16.05.2018 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 126/2016, whereby the learned Tribunal while allowing the claim in part has awarded the total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 16,08,000/-, in favour of the appellants/claimants No. 1 to 3. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant No. 1 is the wife of the deceased Sahdev Mahant, whereas appellants No. 2 & 3 are son and daughter and appellants No. 4 & 5 are brothers and appellants No. 6 & 7 are father and mother who were dependent on the deceased. On 3 01.09.2016, while the deceased was driving bus title named as Popular Bus on his way from Ambikapur to Raigarh bearing registration No. 15- AB 0163, and when he reached near village Gutturuma Tehsil Sitapur, at that time, the offending vehicle truck bearing registration No. CG/13/ D/9801 being ridden by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently dashed the vehicle of the deceased, due to which he suffered internal injuries in his hand and other parts of the body from where looking to gravity of his injuries he was referred to Raipur's hospital from Raigarh's hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries on 04.09.2016. 3. On account of aforesaid accident, the appellants/claimants, who happen to be the legal heir of the deceased instituted a claim petition under section 166 of the Act of 1988 inter alia pleading that the deceased at the relevant time was aged about 38 years, he was skilled bus driver, was taking care of himself and his family by earning Rs. 15,000/- per month and Rs. 200/- allowance per day. 4. The respondents No. 1 & 2 who are the driver and owner of the vehicle truck bearing registration No. CG/13/9801 have filed their written statement and denied the pleading of the appellants/claimants and the respondent No. 1 as a driver of the truck has pleaded that he was driving his vehicle truck bearing registration No. CG-13-9801 as on low speed and the deceased himself has negligently driven the vehicle on the high speed. The vehicle has been insured from the non-appellant No. 3, therefore, the liability has been fasten upon the respondent No. 3/The Oriental Insurance Company. 5. The respondent No. 3/The Oriental Insurance Company has filed its written statement and pleaded that the vehicle of the deceased has not been insured and admitted that the criminal case has been 4 registered for offence under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC against the driver of the vehicle in the police station- Sitapur and the criminal case has also been pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur, therefore, the application has been dismissed. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal after appreciating oral and documentary evidence awarded a sum of Rs. 16,08,000/-. Hence, this appeal filed by the appellants/claimants 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 very less and the learned Tribunal has awarded less compensation under the other head. The Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.1 Lakh each to the claimant under the head love and affection and also the learned Tribunal did not calculate the future prospects. Thus, the appeal may be allowed enhancing the compensation suitably. He places reliance upon the decision of Bhogireddi Varalakshmi & Ors vs Mani Muthupandi And Ors reported in AIR 2017 SC 1195. 8. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 supporting the award impugned submits that the learned Tribunal minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence. 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. The appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 10. It is clear from record of learned Claims Tribunal that as per 5 appellants/claimants the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 15,200/-, but the learned trial Court rightly calculated the income of the deceased person as Rs. 12,150/- as per notional income. The learned Tribunal rightly finds that only appellants/claimants No. 1 to 3 were dependent upon the deceased income, the same appears to be just and proper, as such the learned Tribunal applied multiplier of 15 according to the age of the deceased. However, Tribunal was justified in making 1/3 rd deduction from the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses. However, it is clear that the learned Tribunal committed error in not awarding any sum under the head of future prospects and very less amount under the head of love and affection towards claimants- wife, children, mother and father. 11. In a motor accident claim cases, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. In support of above contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017)16 SCC 680 and in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram & Ors. reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130. 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in both the aforesaid matters dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. Thus, keeping in view all these things and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court is 6 of the view that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side in other heads and requires reconsideration. The claimants/appellants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Head Awarded by Awarded by this Court (Rs.) Tribunal (Rs.) Income 1,45,800/- 1,45,800/- (Rs.12,150/- per (Rs.12,150/- per month x 12) month x 12) Future Nil Prospects Mulltiplier 15 (40 % of 1,45,800/- = 58,320/-) 15 Loss of 1,45,800x15=21 2,04,120x15=30,61,800/- income ,87,000/- Deduction 21,87,000/-x 30,61,800/- x 1/3= 10,20,600/- towards 1/3= 7,29,000/- living and personal expenses Total Loss 14,58,000 20,41,200 (30,61,800- of (21,87,000- 10,20,600/-) Dependen 7,29,000/-) cy Other Spousal Loss of love and affection to convention consortium to appellants/claimants:- al head appellant No. 1 1.Spousal consortium- 40,000/- Rs. 50,000/- 2 & 3 Parental consortium- Parental 80,000/- consortium-Rs. 4 & 5 Filial consortium 80,000 25,000/- to i.e., totaling to 2,00,000/- appellants No. 2 (40,000+80,000+80,000). & 3 each. Funeral Expenses- 15,000/- Funeral Loss of Estate- 15,000/- 7 Expenses – 50,000 Total 16,08,000/- 22,71,200/- compensat ion awarded 13. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the claimants are held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.22,71,200/-. Since the claims tribunal has already awarded Rs. 16,08,000/-, after deducting the said amount, the claimants are entitled for enhanced amount of Rs. 6,63,200/-. This additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8 % p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till realization. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge U.K. Raju