Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2025:CGHC:27026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 954 of 2018 1 - Ku. Seema Sahu D/o Late Munnalal Sahu, Aged About 22 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Bajrangpara, Kohka, Bhilai, P.S. Supela, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kailash Chandra, S/o Late Munnalal Sahu, Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Bajrangpara, Kohka, Bhilai, P.S. Supela, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Leena W/o Bhedram Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Bajrangpara, Kohka, Bhilai, P.S. Supela, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Hiteshwari, W/o Sewaklal @ Sewakram Sahu, R/o Vill - Alha Nawagaon, Post - Gatapar, Tahsil - Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Claiments), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants versus 1 - Subhash Kumar S/o Kejauram Dhruw, R/o Bodara, Po - Kasahi, P.S. Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle Truck No. Cg04/cq/9295), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Jagjivan Singh S/o Late Gurudev Singh, Aged About 40 Years R/o Vivekanand Colony, Road, No. 3, Dhamtari, P.S. City Kotwali, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, And Garcha Road Lines, Tatibandh Raipur, District Raipur (Owner Of Veh. Truck No. Cg04/cq/9295), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, Parmanand Building Dr. Rajendra Prasad Chowk, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Veh. Truck No. Cg04/cq/9295), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 953 of 2018 1 - Ku. Seema Sahu D/o Late Munnalal Sahu, Aged About 22 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Bajrangpara, Kohka, Bhilai, P.S. Supela, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kailash Chandra, S/o Late Munnalal Sahu, Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Bajrangpara, Kohka, Bhilai, P.S. Supela, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Leena W/o Bhedram Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Bajrangpara, Kohka, Bhilai, P.S. Supela, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Hiteshwari, W/o Sewaklal @ Sewakram Sahu, R/o Village - Alha, Nawagaon, Post - Gatapar, Tahsil - Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ---Appellants 2 Versus 1 - Subhash Kumar S/o Kejauram Dhruw R/o Bodara, Po Kasahi, P.S. Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle Truck No. Cg 04/cq/9295)., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Jagjivan Singh S/o Late Gurudev Singh, Aged About 40 Years R/o Vivekanand Colony, Road No. 3, Dhamtari, P.S. City Kotwali, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, And Garcha Road Lines, Tatibandh Raipur, District Raipur. (Owner Of Veh. Truck No. Cg 04/cq/9295), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Through Divisional Manager, Parmanand Building, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Chowk, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Veh. No. Cg 04/cq/9295), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellants For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, Advocate : Mr. T. K. Tiwari, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 23/06/2025 1. 2. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Both these appeals are arising out of same accident, hence, they are
Decision
being heard together and disposed of by this common order. These appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 06.09.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.). The averment in the claim petition, in brief, is that on 17.05.2013, at around 11:30 a.m., the deceased Munnalal Sahu and his wife, Smt. Manju Mohar Bal Sahu, were traveling on a motorcycle from Durg to Balod. When they reached the triangle spot at Saheed Chowk in village Jhalmala, the driver of the offending truck bearing registration No. CG- 04/CQ/9295 entered from the wrong side and collided head-on with the motorcycle. Due to the impact, both the deceased fell down, and the wheel of truck ran over the motorcycle causing fatal injuries to them. They were immediately taken to Sector-9 Bhilai Hospital, but both succumbed to their injuries during the course of treatment. The accident was reported at Balod Police Station, where an FIR was 3 registered on 17.05.2013 under Sections 279, 337, and 304A of the Indian Penal Code against respondent No. 1, the driver of the offending vehicle. All relevant documents related to the criminal case were produced before the learned tribunal. The appellants/claimants, being the sons and daughters of the deceased couple, filed two separate compensation claims before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The first claim (Case No. 05/14) sought Rs. 15,46,000/- for the death of the wife, who was self- employed and earned approximately Rs. 4,000/- per month from sewing and other home-based work. The second claim (Case No. 05/15) sought Rs. 61,50,481/- for the death of Munnalal Sahu, who was employed as a Chargeman at Bhilai Steel Plant and earned a monthly salary of Rs. 44,538/- after all statutory deductions. After considering the evidence and materials presented, the tribunal awarded Rs. 3,39,000/- in the first claim and Rs. 9,40,348/- in the second claim, both with 6% interest from the date of filing the claims. The respondents contested the claims by filing written statements disclaiming liability for the accident and compensation. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, the appellants/claimants filed enhancement appeals, asserting that the compensation amounts are inadequate and do not sufficiently address the financial loss suffered due to the untimely deaths of both parents. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the present appeals have been preferred against the common award dated 06.09.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which, in the submission of the appellants, is grossly inadequate, legally unsustainable, and fails to render just compensation to the dependents 4 of the deceased persons. The award suffers from material errors, both in fact and law, as the learned Tribunal has misappreciated evidence, misapplied legal principles, and ultimately arrived at a computation of compensation that is entirely disproportionate to the evidence on record. The appellants, being the legal heirs of the deceased persons in both matters, have approached this Court, seeking a proper reassessment and enhancement of the compensation in light of the binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the evidence duly led and proved in the proceedings below. It is submitted that the appellants in both cases had filed all necessary and relevant documents before the Tribunal, including income and salary certificates of the deceased. In M.A. No. 954/2018, the appellants had proved, through the oral testimony of PW-1 Ku. Seema Sahu, the daughter of the deceased, that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 4,000/- after deducting living expenses. However, the Tribunal, after initially taking into account an income of Rs. 3,000/- per month, later inexplicably reduced it to a mere Rs. 36,000/- per annum without assigning any cogent reason or legal justification. This shift in approach is not only inconsistent but reflects a mechanical and erroneous application of the law, particularly considering that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation that must be interpreted liberally in favour of the claimants. In the connected matter, M.A. No. 953/2018, the appellants had led the testimony of PW-2 Mohan Singh Thakur, Assistant Manager (Finance) at Bhilai Steel Plant, who clearly and credibly deposed that the deceased was drawing a net salary of Rs. 44,538/- per month after all tax deductions. This unimpeachable testimony, supported by documentary records from a public sector 5 undertaking, was never effectively challenged during trial and therefore stood proved. Yet, the Tribunal disregarded this uncontroverted evidence and arbitrarily took the income to be Rs. 48,000/- per annum, an amount completely divorced from the actual earnings of the deceased and wholly unsupported by the record. This act of the Tribunal, in summarily substituting proven salary with a notional and minimal figure, has caused manifest injustice and has resulted in the appellants being denied their rightful compensation. The Tribunal further committed legal error in both cases by failing to apply the principles laid down in the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. As per the said decision, future prospects of income must mandatorily be considered while calculating loss of dependency. For deceased persons aged between 50 to 60 years, an addition of 15% of the established income is required. In M.A. No. 954/2018, the income of Rs. 36,000/- per annum should have been enhanced by 15%, adding Rs. 5,400/- and thereby bringing the total income to Rs. 41,400/- per annum. Similarly, in M.A. No. 953/2018, the annual salary of Rs. 5,34,456/- proved on record deserved a 15% addition of Rs. 80,168/-, totaling Rs. 6,14,624/- per annum. Ignoring this binding precedent has materially vitiated the award. Further, the Tribunal misapplied the standard deductions and multipliers laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. In both cases, there were four claimants; thus, the standard deduction ought to have been 1/3rd of the total income. In M.A. No. 954/2018, after deduction, the net annual income available for dependency came to Rs. 27,600/-, and applying 6 the appropriate multiplier of 11 (the deceased being aged 51), the total loss of dependency should have been Rs. 3,03,600/-. In M.A. No. 953/2018, after deducting one-third from the income of Rs. 6,14,624/-, the net dependency amount stood at Rs. 4,09,750/- per annum. With the applicable multiplier of 9 (the deceased being 58 years old), the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 36,87,750/-. The failure of Tribunal to correctly apply these well-established principles has resulted in a significant miscarriage of justice. The compensation ultimately awarded, Rs. 3,39,000/- in M.A. No. 954/2018 and Rs. 9,40,348/- in M.A. No. 953/2018, is wholly inadequate and fails to reflect the financial dependency, the economic loss, and the statutory entitlement of the appellants. It is trite law that compensation must be just, reasonable, and adequate, having due regard to the social context, the economic status of the deceased, and the needs of the surviving family members. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again stressed the importance of granting full and fair compensation, particularly in cases involving the death of a breadwinner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the approach of Tribunal was rigid, technical, and disconnected from the realities of the evidence placed before it. Instead of relying upon conjecture or notional income, the Tribunal ought to have based its computation strictly upon proven income, judicial precedent, and the settled position of law. The present awards, therefore, deserve to be modified by this Court by enhancing the compensation in keeping with the principles of equity, justice, and good conscience. In conclusion, learned counsel for the appellants submit that the impugned award dated 06.09.2017 is unsustainable in law and deserves to be modified. The appellants are 7 entitled to enhanced compensation based on the salary certificates, witness testimonies, and the applicable judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The appeals may kindly be allowed, and the compensation enhanced to reflect the true extent of the loss suffered by the appellants. It is therefore prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present appeals, modify the common award dated 06.09.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and enhance the compensation amount as per law and evidence on record, in the interest of justice, equity, and fair play. 5. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3, the Insurance Company, submits that the impugned award is well-considered, just, and in strict conformity with the evidence on record and settled principles of law governing compensation in motor accident claims. The appellants’ attempt to seek enhancement of the award is wholly unwarranted, based on misinterpretation of the facts and an erroneous reading of the applicable legal provisions. It is submitted that the Tribunal has meticulously examined the relevant evidence, including income certificates, salary slips, and witness testimonies, and arrived at a just quantum of compensation by exercising due judicial discretion. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the record. 7. These two appeals, M.A. No. 954/2018 and M.A. No. 953/2018, arise out of the same motor vehicle accident that occurred on 17.05.2013. In MACC No. 05/14, the appellants claimed 15,46,000 for the death of ₹ Smt. Manju Mohar Bal Sahu, who was self-employed, earning approximately 4,000 per month. In MACC No. 05/15, they sought ₹ 8 ₹ 61,50,481 for the death of Shri Munnalal Sahu, who was employed as a Chargeman at Bhilai Steel Plant and drawing a monthly net salary of ₹ ₹ 44,538. The learned Tribunal, by its award dated 06.09.2017, granted 3,39,000 in the first case and 9,40,348 in the second, both with ₹ interest at 6% per annum from the date of application. The appellants, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, have filed these enhancement appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 8. In MAC 954/2018, concerning Smt. Manju Mohar Bal Sahu, the Tribunal took her monthly income as 3,000 and reduced her annual ₹ income to 36,000 without adequate justification. Furthermore, it failed ₹ to apply the mandated 15% future prospects despite the deceased being 51 years old at the time of the accident. Likewise, the consortium was incorrectly granted to all dependents, contrary to the decision in Pranay Sethi, which permits consortium for only one legal heir unless otherwise justified. Additionally, loss of estate was not awarded. 9. In MAC 953/2018, concerning Shri Munnalal Sahu, although the appellants produced unimpeachable salary records and oral evidence from the Assistant Manager (Finance) of Bhilai Steel Plant, the Tribunal arbitrarily took the income of deceased as 48,000 per annum. It failed ₹ to consider the actual proven salary of deceased as 25,465 per month ₹ and did not add 15% future prospects, nor did it award any amount under conventional heads like consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses. 10. This Court finds that the findings of Tribunal suffer from legal and factual infirmities. The judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) and Sarla Verma (Supra) are binding and 9 should have been applied correctly. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and must be interpreted to advance justice to victims and their families. The mechanical approach of Tribunal and disregard of proven evidence have resulted in a miscarriage of justice. 11. Upon reassessment, based on correct legal principles, this Court re- determines the compensation amounts in MAC 954/2018 as follows: 3000 p.m. Income Annual Income 3000 x 12 15% future Prospective (5,400/-) Personal Expenses(1/3) (13,800/-) Net Income Multiplier (x11) Loss of Income Loss of Consortirum @ Rs. 40,000/- per person (with an increase of 10% per 3 years) Funeral Expenses (with an increase of 10% in every 3 years) Loss of Estate (with an increase of 10% in every 3 years) Rs. 36,000/- +5,400/- Rs. 41,400/- (-13,800) Rs. 27,600/- Rs. 3,03,600/- Rs.48,000/-x4 Rs. 1,92,000/- Rs. 18,000/- Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 5,31,600/- 12. In MAC No. 953/2018, it is evident that the Tribunal failed to grant compensation under several well-established heads, including future prospects, consortium, and other conventional components, as mandated by binding judicial precedents. The omission of such elements has resulted in an award that falls short of the standards of ‘just compensation’ as envisaged under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to re-determine the compensation payable to the claimants in MAC No. 953/2018 in the following manner : 10 Income Annual Income 15% future Prospective (45,837) 25,465 p.m. 25,465 x 12 Personal Expenses(1/3) (1,17,139/-) Net Income Multiplier (x11) Loss of Income Loss of Consortirum @ Rs. 40,000/- per person (with an increase of 10% per 3 years) Funeral Expenses (with an increase of 10% in every 3 years) Loss of Estate (with an increase of 10% in every 3 years) Rs. 3,05,580/- +45,837/- Rs. 3,51,417/- (-1,17,139/-) Rs. 2,34,278/- Rs.25,77,058/- Rs. 48,000/-x4 Rs. 1,92,000/- Rs. 18,000/- Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 28,05,058/- 13. This Court holds that the awards passed by the learned Tribunal suffer from significant factual and legal infirmities, including incorrect appreciation of evidence, mechanical computation, and failure to follow binding judgments. The reassessed compensation amounts are based on actual proven income, proper application of statutory multipliers, and inclusion of conventional heads as per binding precedents. 14. Accordingly, M.A.C. No. 954/2018 is allowed in part, and the appellants are held entitled to Rs. 1,92,600/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and M.A.C. No. 953/2018 is allowed in part, and the appellants are held entitled to Rs. 18,64,710/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The rate of interest, mode of disbursement, and apportionment as determined in the original award shall remain unaltered. Gopal Singh/Saxena Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE