Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 / 6 2025:CGHC:38987 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 395 of 2021 1. Pramila W/o Late Amirsai Aged About 37 Years 2. Ku. Pushpa D/o Late Amirsai Aged About 13 Years Through Legal Guardian Appellant No. 1 3. Ramchandra S/o Late Amirsai Aged About 11 Years Through Legal Guardian Appellant No. 1 4. Pratima D/o Late Amirsai Aged About 7 Years Through Legal Guardian Appellant No. 1 5. Udaychandra S/o Late Amirsai Aged About 4 Years Through Legal Guardian Appellant No. 1 6. Ku. Sunima Aged About 4 Month, Through Legal Guardian Appellant No. 1 All are R/o Village Kadna, P. S. Sonhat, Tahsil Baikunthpur District Koriya Chhattisgarh --- Appellants/ Applicants-Claimants versus 1. Rameshwar Prasad Kanwar S/o Jawahar Lal Kanwar Aged About 38 Years R/o Korbi P. S. Hardibazaar, District Koriya Chhattisgarh….Driver 2. Chavindra Kumar Painkra S/o Raghunandan Prasad Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Rajauli, P. S. Sonhat District Koriya Chhattisgarh.......Owner 3. The National Insurance Company Limited Through Regional Manager, Regional Office, Priyadarshini Nagar, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Praveen Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate ---Respondents/ Non-applicants PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 06/08/2025 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 1. Learned counsel for appellants submits that the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is fastened upon Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company 2 / 6 which is represented by the counsel and therefore appeal be heard finally at motion stage. 2. This submission of learned counsel for appellants that Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3-insurance company is directed to first deposit the amount of compensation and thereafter to recover the same from non- applicants No. 1 & 2 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. 3. There is no representation on behalf of Respondents No. 1 & 2, though served. 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 21.01.2021 passed by Learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korea, Baikunthpur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 15/2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 5,48,045/- as compensation in motor accidental death case, exonerated non- applicant No. 3-insurance company from its liability to indemnify insured, directed to pay the awarded amount of compensation and thereafter to recover the same from owner of offending vehicle. 6. This appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The motor accidental death of Late Ameer Say in an accident occurred on 19.09.2018 at about 5:15 pm, involvement of vehicle motorcycle bearing number CG16-CJ-2119 (hereinafter referred to as “offending motorcycle”), non-applicant No. 3 being insurer and direction to non-applicant No. 3 to first satisfy the amount of compensation and then to recover from non-applicants no. 1 & 2 is not in 3 / 6 dispute. In the facts of the case, this Court is not discussing in detail, pleadings made by the claimants in their claim application, reply filed by non- applicants therein and facts 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. 7. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as ₹ 4,500 per month only overlooking the date of accident and occupation as pleaded in the claim application. He next contended that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head of loss of consortium to all claimants, however, only awarded ₹ 44,000 towards loss of spousal consortium and ₹ 44,000 towards loss of parental consortium which is much less in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company opposing the submission of learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that 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. He however, further pointed out that the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation has been fastened upon non-applicants No. 1 and 2, however, Respondent No. 3, being insurer, has been directed to first satisfy the amount of compensation and thereafter to recover the same from non-applicants No. 1 and 2 ie, driver and owner of the offending motorcycle. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 10. Sofar as the submission made by learned counsel for appellants-claimants with regard to assessment of income of deceased as ₹ 4,500 per month on 4 / 6 the date of accident is concerned, the occupation and income of deceased is pleaded to be working as Mason, earning ₹ 12,000 per month, however, admittedly, there is no clinching and admissible evidence available in record to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased as pleaded in the claim application. In the aforementioned facts of the case, Claims Tribunal justified in taking recourse to assess income of deceased on notional basis treating him to be daily wage labourer. If for any reason claimants failed to prove income of deceased by admissible evidence then also the Tribunals are required to assess income of deceased/ injured keeping in mind certain factors like age of deceased, date of accident, cost of living, price index and wages prevailing on the date of accident ie.,of the year 2018, in the area of which deceased was resident and can take help of minimum wages fixed by the competent authority for the unskilled, semi skilled and skilled labourer. Claims Tribunal fell into error in not taking into consideration these factors. In above facts of the case, I find it appropriate to hold that the occupation of deceased to be one of the unskilled labourer. 11. As there is no material in the record to suggest the wages prevailing at the place of which the deceased was resident of, therefore, I find it appropriate to take help of minimum wages fixed by the competent authority and prevailing within the State of Chhattisgarh. Deceased was resident of village Kadna Baikunthpur, and as per the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, minimum wages fixed for the period from 01.04.2018 till 31.09.2018 for unskilled labourer of C-Zone area is ₹ 8100/- per month. Therefore, the monthly income of deceased on the date of accident is determined as ₹ 8,100. It is ordered accordingly. 12. So far as the other submission made by learned counsel for appellants- claimants with regard to award of loss of consortium is concerned, perusal of impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal though has taken note 5 / 6 of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, and by increasing 10% in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, awarded loss of spousal consortium of ₹ 44,000 and loss of parental consortium of only ₹ 44,000 (consolidated) to all children of the deceased, which is erroneous. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram (supra), has held that apart from awarding loss of spousal consortium to widow/ husband, children and parents of the deceased will also be entitled for loss of parental consortium and loss of filial consortium respectively. In the case at hand, appellants No. 2 to 6 are children of deceased, therefore, they are also entitled for loss of parental consortium of ₹ 40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. 13. In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) it is 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. 14. There shall be deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses as number of claimants are 6, application of multiplier would be 9 as the age of deceased on the date of accident was 60 years and addition of 10% of the assessed income towards future prospects as held by Claims Tribunal. Apart from the above, there shall further addition of award of ₹ 11,041 towards medical expenses, ₹ 15,000 towards conveyance expenses and ₹ 3,000 towards attendant, as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 15. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires re-computation, which is as under. Compensation ₹ 7,21,710/- 6 / 6 Particulars • Annual Loss of income/ dependency = ₹ 97,200/- (₹ 8100x12) • Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 10% (₹ 97,200 + 10% of ₹ 97,200 = ₹ 1,06,920) • Deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses (₹ 1,06,920 x 1/4= ₹ 26,730); ₹ 1,06,920 - ₹ 26,730 = ₹ 80,190/- • Multiplier of 9 ₹ 80,190 x 9 = ₹ 7,21,710/- Loss of Spousal Consortium to Appellant No. 1 ₹ 44,000/- Loss of parental consortium to Appellants No. 2 ₹ 2,20,000/- to 6 (₹ 44,000 x 5) Loss of estate Funeral Expenses Medical Expenses Conveyance Expenses Attendant Total ₹ 16,500/- ₹ 16,500/- ₹ 11,041/- ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 3,000/- ₹ 10,47,751/- 16. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 10,47,751/- instead of ₹ 5,48,045/- 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. 17. 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