1 - Smt. Heermani W/o Late Surendra Aged About 35 Years 2- Yougal Kishore v. 1 - Punamchand S/o Shivnarayan Aged
Case Details
-1- 2025:CGHC:13264 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR MAC No. 895 of 2020 1 - Smt. Heermani W/o Late Surendra Aged About 35 Years 2- Yougal Kishore S/o Late Surendra Aged About 13 Years 3 - Tanuja D/o Late Surendra Aged About 11 Years Both Minors applicant No.2 and 3 are through their Natural Guardian , Mother Smt. Heermani 4 - Smt. Kamla Bai W/o Late Gopal Aged About 60 Years All appellants are Gound by cast and R/o Post Office Bhothapara Banraound, Police Station Keregaoun, Tahsil- Nagari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Punamchand S/o Shivnarayan Aged About 23 Years R/o Riwagahan, Post Office Bhendara, Thana Bhakara, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Vehicle) 2 - Ramchand Sahu S/o Punit Ram Aged About 38 Years R/o Era, Post Office Korar , Thana Bhakara, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh . (Owner Of Vehicle) Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.03.25 10:08:24 +0530 3 - Divisional Manager United Insurance Company Limited , Bathena Chowk, Sinha Complex, Post Office Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. Through Divisional Manager , United Insurance Company Limited , Branch Office, Krishna Complex , Jail Road, Kachhahari Chowk , Raipur , Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ... Respondent(s) -2- __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) For Resp. No.1 & 2 : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate None appears though served For Resp. No.3 : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 20/03/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally. 2. This is the claimant’s 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 Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (CG) vide its award dated 26.03.2019 passed in Claim Case No.127 of 2018. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that applicants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the learned Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, pleading therein that on 11.04.2018 when deceased Surendra Kumar was walking towards his house from his side, non-applicant No.1 coming from Surahi side drove his vehicle pickup no. CG 05/D/1348 rashly and negligently and hit Surendra Kumar from behind, causing an accident, due to which he got seriously injured. He died on the way while being taken to hospital at Dhamtari. Report of the incident was lodged against non-applicant No.1 before Police Station Akladongri, District -3- Dhamtari, and a crime was registered. 4. Claimants filed an application seeking compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident, the deceased was 36 years old healthy and strong young man who used to earn Rs. 400- 500/- per day by working as a Carpenter and agricultural Labourer. It was pleaded that the applicants were dependent on the income of the deceased, they have suffered mental and financial shock due to the said accident. They prayed for grant of compensation amount of Rs. 23,00,000/- from the non- applicants, and further to provide 12 % annual interest from the date of application till the date of payment of the compensation. 5. The claim application has been opposed by non-applicants No. 1 & 2 by submitting joint written statement. It was pleaded that non-applicant No.1 is a skilled driver possessing valid driving licence issued by the Regional Transport Officer. Non-applicant No.1 has never violated the conditions of insurance policy. The deceased himself collided with the rear part of the vehicle driven by non-applicant due to his own negligence. Non-applicant No.1 is not at fault in this incident. 6. Non-applicant No.3 also opposed the claim application by submitting his written statement and in its additional written statement it has been pleaded that the non-applicant No.2 i.e. the owner of the vehicle, did not submit the information of the accident to the office of non-applicant No.3. It was pleaded that the non-applicant No.1/Driver was plying the vehicle without -4- having a proper license or the vehicle owner was plying the vehicle in violation of the conditions of insurance policy, therefore, non-applicant No.3 is not responsible for payment of compensation to the applicants. Claim of the applicants is liable to be rejected. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that Surendra Kumar died on account of motor accidental injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1. Breach of insurance policy conditions were not found to be proved. Assessing monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6000/-, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded total amount of compensation of Rs.10,11,000/- vide award dated 26.03.2019 which is under challenge in this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the short question involved in this appeal is whether the amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal by assessing income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.6,000/- per month and awarding total compensation of Rs.10,11,000/- is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case or not. He submits that the appellants/claimants in their claim application as also in the evidence have specifically pleaded and stated that on the date of incident deceased was working as Carpenter and agricultural labourer and thereby earning Rs.400-500/- per day. -5- However, learned Claims Tribunal erred in not considering the nature of employment as pleaded and stated and earning of the deceased and have assessed the income on notional basis as Rs.6,000/- per month. He also contended that the amount awarded on other heads also is on lower side and therefore amount of compensation needs to be enhanced. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and submits that learned Claims Tribunal in absence of specific proof with respect to nature of employment and income of deceased rightly assessed the income on notional basis as Rs.6,000/- and thus calculated and awarded total amount of compensation of Rs.10,11,000/- which in the facts and circumstances of the case does not call for any interference. 10. In the case at hand, it is not in dispute that claimant/appellant No.1 is the wife, appellants No.2 & 3 are the children and appellant No.4 is the mother of deceased Surendra Kumar who died in a fatal motor accident. Liability fastened upon respondent No.3/Insurance company to pay compensation is also not disputed. Claimants in their claim application pleaded the occupation of the deceased to be Carpenter and agricultural labourer. However, in support of their case, they have not examined any independent witness to prove the nature of employment of the income of the deceased but for the statement of the appellant No.1/wife of the deceased. Hence, -6- the learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. 11. In the aforementioned facts of the case, it cannot be said that the appellants/claimants have proved the nature of employment and the income of deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence and therefore the income of the deceased has to be assessed on notional basis. 12. For the purpose of calculating the amount of 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 and Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948. In the notification published for the period from 01.10.2017 to 31.03.2018 for Class-C Cities’ for ‘unskilled labourer’, monthly income has been prescribed as Rs.7800/-. As the engagement of deceased as Carpenter and agricultural labourer could not be proved, I find it appropriate to consider the nature of employment of the deceased who is an able-bodied person as Labourer and income as Rs.7,800/- per month instead of Rs.6,000/- per month as held by learned Claims Tribunal. 13. On the date of incident, age of the deceased was 40 years as held by learned Claims Tribunal based on the postmortem report and therefore in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680, the income of the deceased is -7- required to be enhanced by 25% towards future prospects which comes to Rs. 9750/- (7800 + 1950). Thus, the annual income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating compensation comes to Rs. 1,17,000/- (9750 x 12). As there are four dependents of the deceased, in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, out of this amount, ¼ is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased and after deducting ¼, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.87,750/- (1,17,000 - 29250). By applying multiplier of 15 as applied by the Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency, total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 13,16,250/- (87,750 x 15). Apart from the above, the claimant/appellant No. 1 would be entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium, appellants No. 2 & 3 being children would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium and appellant No.4 being mother of the deceased would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards of loss of filial consortium 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 are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. Now the appellants/claimants are awarded the total compensation of Rs.15,06,250/- which are as under: -8- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Loss of Income/dependency : Rs.13,16,250 Funeral expenses Loss of Estate Loss of spousal consortium to Claimant No.1/wife Loss of parental consortium to appellants No. 2 & 3 @ 40,000/- each : Rs. 15,000 : Rs. 15,000 : Rs. 40,000 : Rs. 80,000 Loss of filial consortium to appellant No.4/mother : Rs. 40,000 Total compensation : Rs.15,06,250 14. Aforementioned total amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% 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 by this Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 15. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen