Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:31614 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 955 of 2019 1 - Smt. Aarti Yadav S/o Late Shiv Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Dileep Yadav, House No.20, Street No.20, Aawaspara, Parsada, Police Station Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Shivani Yadav D/o Aarti Yadav Aged About 2 Years Natural Guardian Her Mother Smt. Arti Yadav, R/o Dileep Yadav, House No.20, Street No.20, Aawaspara, Parsada, Police Station Chakarbhata District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt.Aasin Bai W/o Late Kalaram Yadav Aged About 62 Years R/o Pendari, Police Station Sakri District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Versus ... Appellants 1 - Laxmi Sahu S/o Bholaram Aged About 35 Years R/o Salhedhori, Police Station- Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2 - Khemchand Sahu C/o Dulariram Sahu, Arya Colony 2, Shyam Niwas, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Bajaj Alliances General Insurance Company Limited R/o G.E. Plaza, Airport Road, Yarwda, Puna-411006, District : Pune, Maharashtra ... Respondents For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Navneet Yadav, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 09/07/2025 1. Office report shows that the notice sent to the Respondent No. 1 is un- served. None for the Respondent No. 2, though served. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is jointly and severally upon the Non- Applicants i.e. the driver, owner and the Insurance Company. The offending vehicle on the date of accident was insured with the Non- applicant No. 3, therefore, the first liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon the Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company. Hence, this appeal may be heard finally at the motion stage. 3. The submission of the counsel for the appellants is not opposed by the counsel for the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company.
Decision
4. In view of the above, this case is heard finally at the motion stage. 5. This appeal is filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 05.03.2019 passed by the 6th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 710/2017. 6. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 30.06.2017, the offending vehicle bearing registration no. CG 10 AB 1236 driven by the Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed Shiv Yadav at Village Pendari, District – Bilaspur and caused accident. In the said accident, Shiv Yadav suffered serious injuries, he was taken to hospital for treatment. During course of treatment, Shiv Yadav succumbed to his injuries. Subsequent to the said accident, an FIR was registered 3 bearing Crime No. 351/2017, P.S. Chakarbhata, District – Bilaspur for the offence punishable under Sections 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 7. The appellants/claimants in the claim application have pleaded that the deceased was aged about 23 years, was doing the work of Mason and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. Due to said accident, the appellants/claimants have lost their bread-winner and have sought compensation of Rs. 11,18,320/- from the non-applicants. 8. The Non-Applicants No. 1 & 2 submitted their reply to the claim application pleading that the Non-Applicant No. 1 was not involved in the said accident. The claimants/applicants failed to prove the nature of occupation and the income of the deceased and further, the offending vehicle was insured with the Non-Applicant No. 3 on the date of accident. Therefore, liability to satisfy the amount of compensation if any, will be upon the Non-applicant No. 3. 9. The Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company submitted its reply denying the pleadings made in the claim application and further pleaded that the offending vehicle was insured for the period from 14.02.2017 till 13.02.2018 and the date of accident is of 30.06.2017. On the date of accident, the Non-applicant No. 1 was not possessing the valid and effective driving license and the offending vehicle was plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy. Thus, the Non- Applicant No. 3 is not liable to satisfy the award. 10. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the facts and evidence brought on record, held that death of deceased was on account of motor accidental injuries suffered by him by the offending 4 vehicle, awarded compensation of Rs. 11,18,320/- and fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon Non-applicant No. 3. 11.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in computing less amount of compensation by assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,200/- per month overlooking the pleadings with regard to the occupation of the deceased as Mason and his earning as Rs. 10,000/- per month. He next contended that even if the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant could not be able to prove the nature of occupation as pleaded in the claim application, then also, if the deceased is to be considered to be one of an Unskilled Labourer, his income would not be less than Rs. 9,000/- per month. He lastly contended that the amount of compensation awarded under other conventional heads is also on lower side. The compensation under the head of loss of consortium is awarded only to Applicant No. 1 i.e. the wife of the deceased and not to the Claimants No. 2 & 3 who are child and mother of the deceased. Therefore, the amount of compensation may be enhanced suitably. 12.On the other hand, learned counsels for the Non-applicant No. 3/Insurance Company opposes the submission of counsel for the appellants/claimants and would submit that claimants/applicants failed to prove the nature of occupation and income of the deceased by placing admissible piece of evidence. He contended that the learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidence and facts available on record has awarded just and proper amount of compensation which does not call for any interference. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case. 5 14. The claimants in the claim application have pleaded that the age of the deceased on the date of accident was 23 years, he was working as Mason and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. To prove the pleadings made in the claim application, the claimants have examined Applicant/Claimant No. 1 as AW – 1, Ashwini Patle as AW – 2 and Santosh Kumar as AW – 3. The witnesses Ashwini Patle (AW – 2) and Santosh Kumar (AW – 3) are witnesses to the accident. They have not made any statement with regard to the nature of occupation and income of the deceased. 15. From the aforementioned facts of the case and evidence available on record, it is apparent that the claimants except the pleadings made in the claim application and the self-serving statements of AW – 1 (widow of the deceased, could not be able to produce any other evidence to prove the fact that the deceased was working as Mason and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Claims Tribunal has not erred in disbelieving the pleadings and the evidence of widow (AW -1) with regard to the nature of occupation and income of the deceased and considering the income of the deceased to be of an Unskilled Labourer. However, the assessment of income of deceased has not been correctly done. The deceased was the resident of Parsada which is near to Bilaspur and therefore, it can be considered that the deceased was a resident of ‘B’ zone area. According to the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the wages fixed for the Unskilled Labourer residing in the ‘B’ zone area for the period from 01.10.2017 to 31.03.2018 is Rs. 8190/- per month. Therefore, I find it 6 appropriate to assess the income of the deceased as Rs. 8190/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 16. Further, the learned Claims Tribunal has added 40% of the assessed income towards the loss of future prospects, applied deduction of 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses and multiplier of 18 which is in consonance with the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 and does not call for any interference. 17. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards the loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 40,000/- to the Applicant/Claimant No. 1 towards loss of spousal consortium which is to the tune of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). The award of compensation under the head of loss of consortium is further categorized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the types of consortium and held that the there are three types of consortium i.e. spousal consortium for widow/widower, parental consortium to children and filial consortium to parents. In the case at hand, the Appellants/Claimants No. 2 & 3 are child and mother of the deceased and therefore, they are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of parental and filial consortium (total Rs. 80,000/-) respectively. It is ordered accordingly. 7 18. For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants. 19. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.8,190/- and since at the time of death, the deceased was 23 years old, therefore, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the income of deceased is enhanced by 40% towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.11,466/- (8190+3276). Thus annual income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the compensation comes to Rs.1,37,592/- (11,466 x 12). Out of this amount, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and after deducting 1/3rd of the annual income, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.91,728/- (1,37,592 – 45,864). By applying multiplier of 18, as applied by the Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency, total loss of dependency would come to Rs.16,51,104/- (91,728 x 18). Besides this, Appellants/Claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards parental consortium. 20. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.18,01,104/- (16,51,104 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000). The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 21. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants No. 1 to 3 as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. 22. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands 8 modified to the extent indicated above. 23. Certified copy as per rules. Dey Sd/-/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge