Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:17176 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 887 of 2020 1. Merkha Pupen Ekka W/o Late Ramkumar Ekka, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Sikilama P.S. And Tahsil Lundra District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 2. Jyoti Kiran Ekka D/o Ramkumar Ekka Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Appellant No. 1 Merkha Pupen Ekka W/o Late Ramkumar Ekka, R/o Village Sikilama P.S. And Tahsil Lundra District Surguja (CG) 3. Poonam Ekka D/o Late Ramkumar Ekka Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Appellant No. 1 Merkha Pupen Ekka W/o Late Ramkumar Ekka, R/o Village Sikilama P.S. And Tahsil Lundra District Surguja (CG) ... Appellants/Claimants versus 1. Jai Deepak Ekka S/o Ignasiyush Ekka, Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Bachhraon P.S. Narayanpur District Jashpur (CG) (Driver) 2. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Division Office Near Ambedkar Chowk Manendragarh Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh............Insurer ... Respondent(s) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
1. There is no dispute regarding the accident, cause of accident as also liability of insurance company to indemnify the insured owner of offending vehicle. Sole question involves in this appeal for consideration is whether or not the Claims Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation to the claimants. In such circumstance, issuance of notice to respondent No.1, who is registered owner-cum-driver of offending vehicle, is dispensed with. 2. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is being heard finally at the admission stage itself. 3. Appellant-claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur District Surguja (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 4.12.2019 passed in Claim Case No.155/2019. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 26.12.2018 at about 10:45 p.m. Ramkumar Ekka (since deceased) along with his friend Pinku Oraon was going on his motorcycle to village Askala, when he reached near Beera Chowk on Askala- Beeradih Road, at the time one Bolero bearing registration number CG14-C-0750, being driven by its driver in a rash and 3 negligent manner, came from wrong side, badly dashed motorcycle of Ramkumar Ekka as a result he sustained grievous injuries on his head, chest, face and other parts. He was immediately taken to District Hospital Ambikapur where he died on 27.12.2018 while undergoing treatment. Report of incident was lodged in concerned police station based on which offence under Section 279, 337 & 304A of IPC was registered. Claimants/appellants herein filed an application seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.20,24,400/- under various heads on the ground that on the date of accident, deceased was abled body person, he was working as Mason, earning Rs.9,000/- per month and they were dependent on earning of deceased. 5. Non-applicant No.1 filed their reply to claim application denying averments made therein. It was pleaded that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with non- applicant No.2- Insurance Company; non-applicant No.1 was having valid license and therefore, in case any compensation is awarded to claimant, then the insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured. 6. Non-applicant No.2- Insurance Company also submitted its reply denying the averments made in application. It was pleaded that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by deceased. On the date of 4 accident, non-applicant No.1 was not having valid and effective license to drive the offending vehicle. The insurance company of motorcycle has not been impleaded as party to application, therefore, application is not maintainable. 7. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the pleadings and evidence placed on record (oral and documentary both) by the respective parties has arrived at the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver; there was no violation of any of the conditions of insurance policy and consequently, allowed claim application in part; awarded compensation of Rs.7,45,000/- along with interest @ 7% p.a. and fastened liability upon non-applicants, jointly and severally, to satisfy the impugned award. 8. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submits that the claimants in their evidence have specifically stated that on the date of accident, deceased was working as Mason and earning Rs.9,000/- per month, however, the Claims Tribunal has erroneously assessed income of deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month by holding that income of deceased is not proved by producing documentary evidence. He submits that in absence of documentary proof, income of deceased should have been assessed based on price index, cost of living, wage structure or minimum wage notified by the Competent 5 Authority under the Minimum Wages Act for the area where deceased was residing. He further argued that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium to appellants No.2 and 3. The compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side and therefore, he prays for enhancement of the same. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has supported the impugned award and contended that amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in the given facts and circumstances of case is just and proper and it does not call for any interference. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record 11. As regards the income of deceased, perusal of the impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal disbelieved the version of claimants that deceased was working as Mason, earning Rs.9,000/- per month by recording that the claimants failed to produce any concrete evidence to prove the employment of deceased and income therefrom and accordingly assessed income of deceased at Rs.4500/- per month on notional basis. However, considering that accident in question occurred on 26.12.2018 and during that period, wage rate fixed for a unskilled labourer of ‘C’ Class city by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was Rs.7800/- per month, in the considered opinion of this 6 Court, the Claims Tribunal has taken lesser notional income of deceased. Hence, I find it appropriate to re-assess notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,800/- p.m. instead of Rs.4,500/- as assessed by the Claims Tribunal. 12. Since at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 40 years and not in permanent employment, the Claims Tribunal was correct in adding 25% to assessed income of deceased on account of loss of future prospects. As there are total three dependent members, who are appellants before this Court, deduction of one-third towards personal expenses of deceased is correct. This Court also sees no illegality in applying multiplier of "15", because deceased was 40 years of age at the time of the accident and as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhit Transport Corporation & anr, reported in (2009) 6, SCC 121, for the age group 36 to 40 years proper multiplier is '15'. Award of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses is also as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 13. In case of Pranay Sethi (supra), it was held that whosoever are dependents of deceased who died in a road accident, are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each for loss of consortium. In case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias 7 Chuhru Ram and Others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorized the loss of consortium into three categories i.e. filial, parental and spousal. In case at hand, there is no dispute that appellants are widow and children of deceased and being so, they are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each for loss of consortium i.e. spousal and parental. It is ordered accordingly. 14. For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants. 15.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.7,800/- per month and after adding 25% towards future prospects, the monthly income of deceased would come to Rs.9750/- (7800+1950) and annual income would be Rs.1,17,400/-. Out of this amount, one-third is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased and after deducting one-third, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.78,000/-. Applying multiplier of 15, as applied by Claims Tribunal, the loss of dependency would be Rs.11,70,000/- (78000x18). Besides this, appellant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium; appellant No.2 & 3 are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each for loss of parental consortium, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram (supra). In addition to aforesaid amount, appellants are also 8 entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.13,20,000/- (11,70,000 + 1,20,000 + 30000) recoverable from the respondents, jointly and severally. This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of application till actual payment is made. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount disbursed to appellant pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted from the amount of compensation as awarded above.
Arguments
: Ms. Akanchha Verma, Advocate on behalf of For Respondents No.1 For Respondent No.2 : None : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 15/4/2025
Decision
16.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI roshan/-