Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 / 6 2025:CGHC:42220 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1196 of 2024 PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 1. Smt. Jal Bai, aged about 45 years, wife of late Katthar Singh 2. Arun Singh, aged about 24 years son of late Katthar Singh 3. Usha Kanwar, aged about 21 years, daughter of late Katthar Singh 4. Pushpa Kanwar, aged about 18 years, daughter of late Katthar Singh 5. Karan Singh, aged about 15 years, son of late Katthar Singh, minor represented through mother Smt. Jal Bai. All are resident of Purani Basti, Risdi, Chwoki-Rampur, Korba, Tahsil & District-Korba, C.G. --- Appellants/ Applicants-Claimants versus 1. Banne Singh son of Dilip Singh, aged about 23 years, resident of Kerpura, Tahsil Bava District-Nagpur (Rajasthan) 2. Chenaram son of Shrawan Ram resident of Kalabhantha Ki Dhani Swarnpura, Anandpura, District Nagpur (Rajasthan) 3. United India Insurance Company Limited, through the Divisional Manager, Station Road, Sitamani, Korba, District Korba, C.G. ---Respondents/ Non-applicants ____________________________________________________________
Legal Reasoning
For Appellants : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate with Ms. Priya Kaiwart, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 20/08/2025 1. 2. Notice sent to Respondents No. 1 & 2 is reported unserved. Learned counsel for appellants submits that the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is saddled upon Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company 2 / 6 which is represented by the counsel and therefore appeal be heard finally at motion stage. 3. This submission of learned counsel for appellants with regard to liability to satisfy amount of compensation upon Respondent No. 3-insurance company is not disputed by the counsel for Respondent No. 3. He submits that he is having no objection if the appeal is heard finally at motion stage. 4. With the consent of the parties, case is heard finally. 5. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), challenging the award dated 23.01.2024 passed by Learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Korba, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 78/2020, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part, awarded total sum of ₹ 14,43,800/- as compensation in motor accidental death case. 6. This appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Motor accidental death of Late Katthar Singh in an accident occurred on 04.09.2020, involvement of vehicle Hyva bearing number RJ37-GA-8611 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) owned by non-applicant No. 2, driven by non-applicant No. 1, as well as liability to satisfy the amount of compensation fastened upon non-applicant No. 3 being insurer is not in dispute. 7. In the facts of the case, this Court is not entering into factual aspect and discussing in detail of pleadings made by the claimants in their claim application, reply filed by non-applicants therein and discussed by the Claims Tribunal in the impugned award, however, only considering the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties on enhancement of compensation. 8. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in disbelieving the income of deceased as mentioned in the 3 / 6 salary slip Ext. P-14 to P-17 as also the evidence of AW-3, Dhaneshwar Jaltare, who is working as Site Incharge in the Accellero Movers Pvt. Ltd., BALCO company in which deceased was also working as labourer. Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of consortium to all the claimants but for claimant No. 1 only. He also submits that the compensation awarded under other conventional heads be increased in accordance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 9. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants-claimants and would submit that learned Claims Tribunal, appreciating documentary and oral evidence placed on record in prove of salary of deceased, correctly held that from evidence of AW-3, it could not be proved the heads under which the amount is paid. The amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case is just and proper and it does not call for any interference. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 11. To appreciate the submission of learned counsel for appellants that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing ₹ 9,120 per month as income of deceased erroneously is concerned, perusal of record would show that, claimants in support of pleadings of income had submitted copy of Form XIX under the Chhattisgarh contract Labour Rules, 1973 issued to deceased at the time of his employment under the seal of Shree Tirupati Transport Pvt. Ltd., Korba. Salary slip, Ext. P-14 to P-17 bears different amount of making alleged payment to deceased. In pleadings it is mentioned that deceased was working with Dhaneshwar Jaltare. Evidence of AW-3, would show that deceased was employed with Accellero Movers Pvt. Ltd. As argued by the 4 / 6 counsel for appellants that Ext. P-14 to P-17, salary slips, though issued under the seal of Accellero Movers Pvt. Ltd, however, the witness examined on behalf of claimants as AW-3 in cross-examination has stated that he was not authorised by the firm. He also admitted that documents Ext. P-14 to P- 17 have not been issued by him. 12. In the aforementioned facts of the case, AW-3 who was examined by the claimants to prove income of deceased himself is not author of document. He was not authorized by the company/ firm in which deceased was also working prior to date of accident, nor he has produced any document to show that he was an employee of Accellero Movers Pvt. Ltd. by submitting any document in the form of i-Card or letter of appointment etc. In the aforementioned facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in disbelieving the document Ext. P-14 to 17. The said finding of the Claims Tribunal does not call for any interference and therefore the submission made by learned counsel for appellants-claimants in this regard is not sustainable and it is repelled. 13. Income of deceased is assessed by the Claims Tribunal as ₹ 9,120 per month. Date of accident is 04.09.2020. Claimants are resident of Korba which falls within B-zone area and as per the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 wages fixed for unskilled labourer of B-zone area, for the period during which accident occurred is ₹ 9,120 per month. Claims Tribunal justified in assessing income of deceased taking note of the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under the Act of 1948. Therefore, I do not find any error in determining the income of deceased as ₹ 9,120 per month. It is affirmed. 14. So far as the other ground raised by learned counsel for appellants-claimants of not awarding any amount of compensation for loss of consortium to all the claimants is concerned, law in this regard is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and further in the case of Magma 5 / 6 General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, categorized and specified types of consortium to be awarded to claimants ie., loss of spousal consortium to widow/ husband, loss of parental consortium to children and loss of filial consortium to parents of the deceased of ₹ 40,000/- to each. Therefore, claimants No. 2 to 5 are also entitled for loss of parental consortium of ₹ 40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. 15. Claims Tribunal has rightly added 25% of the assessed income to the income of deceased towards future prospects, applied deduction of 1/4 and multiplier of 13, which are to the tune of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Apart from above, claimants will also be entitled for compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal for loss of spousal consortium of ₹ 40,000, funeral expenses of ₹ 15,000 and loss of estate of ₹ 15,000. 16. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, observed that compensation under the head of other conventional heads is to be increased by 10% in every three years, and therefore amount of compensation under the heads of funeral expenses would be ₹ 16,500 from ₹ 15,000, loss of estate would be ₹ 16,500 from ₹ 15,000, and loss of consortium would be ₹ 44,000 each from ₹ 40,000. 17. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires re-computation, which is as under. Particulars • Annual Loss of income/ dependency = ₹ 1,09,440/- (₹ 9120x12) • Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 25% (₹ 1,09,440 + 25% of ₹ 1,09,440 = ₹ 1,36,800) Compensation ₹ 13,33,800/- 6 / 6 • Deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses (₹ 1,36,800 x 1/4= ₹ 34,200); ₹ 1,36,800 - ₹ 34,200 = ₹ 1,02,600/- • Multiplier of 13 ₹ 1,02,600 x 13 = ₹ 13,33,800/- Loss of spousal consortium ₹ 44,000 Loss of parental consortium to Appellants No. 2 ₹ 1,76,000/- to 5 (₹ 44,000 x 4) Loss of estate Funeral Expenses Total ₹ 16,500/- ₹ 16,500/- ₹ 15,86,800/- 18. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 15,86,800/- instead of ₹ 14,43,800/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. • Any amount paid to the appellants-claimants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. • Rest of the conditions as imposed by the Claims Tribunal in the impugned award shall remain intact. 19. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. pwn Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge