2 - Ku. Ragini D/o Late Yogesh Yadav Aged About 17 Years 3 v. 1 - Kanhiyalal S/o Sahsram Patel Aged About 35 Years R/o Shivnagar, Ward No
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:32787 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 1 - Smt. Maheshwari W/o Late Yogesh Yadav Aged About 41 Years MAC No. 989 of 2019 2 - Ku. Ragini D/o Late Yogesh Yadav Aged About 17 Years 3 - Nikhil S/o Late Yogesh Yadav Aged About 15 Years No.2 and 3 both are minor, Through Natural Guardian Of Her Mother Smt. Maheshwari W/o Late Yogesh Yadav, All are R/o Village Bartori, Police Station Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. versus 1 - Kanhiyalal S/o Sahsram Patel Aged About 35 Years R/o Shivnagar, Ward No. 20, Uslapur, Police Station Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants 2 - Chola Mandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited Through Director, Simran Tower, Vidhansabha Marg, Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ….Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Anuragh Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate along with Ms. Shrishti Upadhyay, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 14/07/2025 1. Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.23 10:38:53 +0530 enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 22.02.2019 passed in Claim 2 Case No.590/2017 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.7,13,544/- as compensation in a death case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming total compensation of Rs.1,07,50,000/- under different heads on account of the death of Yogesh Yadav, who died in the road accident, pleading therein that on 17.10.2016, at around 1:45 p.m., Yogesh Yadav was traveling from the District Panchayat Bilaspur to Sirgitti on his motorcycle bearing registration number CG 10-X 5580, when he reached near Maharana Pratap Chowk, non-applicant No. 1, while riding another motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed Yogesh Yadav from behind, causing a serious accident. As a result, Yogesh Yadav fell and sustained severe head injuries, leading to his death on the spot. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased was 49 years old. He was a member of the Zila Panchayat, Bilha, and owned agricultural land, a tractor, a car, and a motorcycle in his name and he was earning an income of ₹30,000 per month. The appellants were dependent upon the deceased and due to his untimely death they are facing great financial crises. 3. Non-applicant No.1 filed reply to the claim application resisting the claim. It was pleaded that the accident occurred due to self negligence of deceased himself. On date of accident he was holding valid and effective driving license and offending vehicle was duly insured with non-applicant No.2. Non-applicant No.2 filed its reply denying the averments made in the application and it was pleaded that offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and in order to get 3 compensation, it has been falsely implicated in this case. Accident was reported after about 2 months of the accident. Accident occurred due to self negligence of deceased himself. At the time of accident, non- applicant No.1 was not having valid and effective driving license and it was being plied in breach of conditions of the insurance policy. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.7,13,544/- and fastened liability upon non-applicant No.2/ Insurance Company to indemnify the insured. 5. Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation. Observing that no evidence is placed on record to prove the income as pleaded by claimants, has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.6,448/- per month treating him to be the skilled laboure. He contended that from para -14 of the impugned award it is appearing that witness Smt. Maheshwari Yadav (AW-1), in her statement categorically stated that she has submitted the revenue documents showing agricultural property recorded in the name of deceased, registration certificate of tractor bearing No.C.G.-10-D-7140 in the name of deceased dated 07.06.2011 and registration certificate of trolley bearing registration No.C.G.-10-D-7141. He also contended that claimants have also submitted the registration certificate of the car bearing No.C.G.10- F8739 in the name of deceased. If aforementioned documents ought to have been considered by the learned Claims Tribuna, learned Claims Tribunal could have arrived at conclusion for assessing the 4 income of the deceased correctly. He submits that for the mistake of counsel, the claimants may not be made to suffer. He further contended that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to appellant No.1, widow of the deceased and however, not awarded to the children i.e. applicant N.2 and 3. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant. He submits that from the award itself it is apparent that claimants have failed to produce any documentary evidence with regard to property or vehicle registration in the name of the deceased. No such document has been marked and exhibited in records of the Claims Tribunal. He however not disputing the submission of learned counsel for appellants that appellants No.2 and 3 are also entitled for compensation under the head of loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 8. In the claim application, the claimants have pleaded the income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- per month. It is also mentioned that deceased was agriculturist and member of Zila Panchayat. To prove the pleadings made in the claim application, applicant No.1 examined herself as AW-1. In her evidence, she stated that claimants have submitted copy of election certificate, Rin Pustika (Kisan Book), R.C. book of tractor & trolley and R.C. book of Mahindra Car. However, the documents as mentioned above is not marked and exhibited. Copy of the aforementioned documents are available in record along with un - exhibited documents. Election certificate of Election Division- 7 Bilha 5 issued on 01.02.2015 is available on record at Page No.27. Copy of Rin Pustika in the name of the deceased is also available in the Page- 29. Copy of registration certificate of tractor bearing C.G.-10D-7140 and trolley bearing C.G.-10D-7141 in the name of deceased is available on record at Page No.30 & 31 respectively. Copy of registration certificate of the Sedan car of Mahindra Company bearing No.C.G.-10F-8739 is also available. 9. Once, the claimants have made sincere efforts to bring the relevant documents on record, showing the ownership of tractor, trolley and car as also the immovable property in the name of deceased and election certificate, learned Claims Tribunal fell into error in not considering the said documents for the purpose of computation of income of deceased. The learned Claims Tribunals while considering the claim of compensation under the Act, 1988 ought to have taken note of the documents submitted by the claimants to show that deceased on the date of accident was owner of vehicles as also immovable property so as to compute the appropriate income of the deceased. Even if the documents has not been exhibited, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have done some guess work to ascertain the appropriate income of the deceased. The object of the Act of 1988 is to award just and fair compensation to the claimants/legal representative of the deceased and at the same time it is to be looked into it should not be bonanza. Considering entirety of the facts of the case, where deceased was survived by widow, two children and they are having vehicle and immovable property recorded in the name of deceased, I find it 6 appropriate to assess the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 10. Learned Claims Tribunal has rightly added 10% of the established income towards loss of future prospects and deduction of 1/3 towards personal living expenses and made application of multiplier of 11, which is to the tune of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 11. Learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs.15,000/- each under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses, which is also in consonance with the decision in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), however, learned Claims tribunal has only awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to applicant No.1. As per decision in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, children i.e. appellant No.2 and 3 are also entitled for loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. 12. On the basis of above, the compensation calculated by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Annual income : 15,000 x 12 = 1,80,000.00 2. Addition of 10% towards future : 1,80,000.00 + 18,000.00 = 1,98,000.00 prospects 3. 1/3 deduction towards personal : 1,98,000.00 – 66,000.00 = 1,32,000.00 expenses 4. Loss of dependency after : 1,32,000 x 11 = 14,52,000.00 7 application of multiplier of 11 5. For loss of spousal and parental consortium to the appellants Rs.40,000/- each (40,000 x 3) : 1,20,000.00 6. For funeral expenses 7. For loss of estate Grand Total : : : 15,000.00 15,000.00 16,02,000.00 13.
Decision
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.16,02,000.00. Any amount paid to the appellants as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram