KU. KHUSHBU v. NIJAMUDDIN Order Sheet
Case Details
1 / 2 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 972 of 2020 KU. KHUSHBU versus NIJAMUDDIN Order Sheet 08/04/2025 Mr. Satyendra Srivas, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. Office report shows that the notice sent to the Respondent No. 2 is unserved. Learned counsel for the respective parties submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has fastened the liability to satisfy the award upon the Respondent No.3. The liability to satisfy the award upon the Respondent No.
Legal Reasoning
3 is not disputed by the counsel for the Respondent No. 3. In the aforementioned facts of the case, service of notice to the Respondent No. 1 & 2 is dispensed with. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2020 which is an application for condonation of delay of 829 days in filing of the appeal. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 vehemently opposes the submissions of learned counsel for appellant and the pleadings made in the application and would submit that no satisfactory explanation is offered to the delay caused in filing of the appeal. There is an inordinate delay of 829 days in filing of 2 / 2 the appeal. Hence, I.A. No. 01/2020 may be dismissed and consequently, the appeal be also dismissed being barred by limitation. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the records of the appel. The appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation by the legal representatives of Late Ramabai Yadav who was the breadwinner. The appeal is filed by the minor children through their maternal grandmother. Considering the reasons assigned in the application as also, considering the beneficial piece of legislation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, I find it appropriate to condone the delay of 829 days in filing of the appeal. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2020 is allowed. Delay of 829 days in filing of the appeal is condoned. The case is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, case is heard finally. Order passed separately. Signed and dated. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY Dey 1 2025:CGHC:16356 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 972 of 2020 1 - Ku. Khushbu D/o Lt. Balram Yadav Aged About 10 Years Through Guardian And Their Maternal Grandmother Smt. Rambai Yadav. R/o Purani Basti, Gopiya Para, P.S. - Purani Basti, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Aarti D/o Lt. Balram Yadav Aged About 8 Years Through Guardian And Their Maternal Grandmother Smt. Rambai Yadav. R/o Purani Basti, Gopiya Para, P.S. - Purani Basti, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Raj S/o Lt. Balram Yadav Aged About 6 Years Through Guardian And Their Maternal Grandmother Smt. Rambai Yadav. R/o Purani Basti, Gopiya Para, P.S. - Purani Basti, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Versus ... Appellants 1 - Nijamuddin S/o Hijamuddin R/o Subhash Nagar, Nahar Para, Raipur Tah. And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Tousif Ali S/o Anwar Ali, R/o Subhash Nagar, Nahar Para, Raipur Tah. And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through - Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. G.E. Road Raipur, Tah. And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Appellants For Appellants : Mr. Satyendra Srivas, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For Non-appellants : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 08/04/2025 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 02.11.2017 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 154/2012. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 16.06.2009, the Respondent No. 1 was driving his Auto bearing Registration No. CG 04 T 4401 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto to a nearby Tea shop and fled from the spot. At the place of incident, the said offending auto dashed the Tea shop and its articles due to which, the hot boiled tea which was at the Tea shop spilled over the deceased i.e. Maya Yadav, she sustained severe burn injures and subsequently, she succumbed to the said injuries. On the date of incident, the deceased was 28 years of age. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded meager sum as amount of compensation. Learned Claims Tribunal has erroneously assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4000/- per month overlooking the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by the appellants/claimants that the deceased was working as cook and earning a sum of Rs. 5000. He also contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding the amount of parental consortium to the appellants who are the children of the deceased. Hence, the said impugned order be enhanced suitably. 3 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 opposes the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and would submit that the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case is just and proper. Hence, the impugned award does not call for any interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the appeal and the copy of the award passed. 6. The short question involved in this appeal is with regard to seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. 7. Perusal of the impugned award would show that the learned Claims Tribunal failed to prove the nature of employment and the earnings of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 5000 per month by placing clinching and admissible piece of evidence. In absence of any admissible piece of evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal has to take into consideration the price index wage structure prevailing in the area where the deceased is residing or the learned Claims Tribunal can also take into consideration the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the purpose of ascertaining the income of the deceased. 8. In the case at hand, the claimants failed to prove the nature of employment and the monthly income of the deceased and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased as Rs. 4000/- per month which is not less than the minimum-wages fixed by the competent authority prevailing in the year 2009. Hence, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the monthly income assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, it is affirmed. 4 9. Further perusal of the award would show show that the learned Claims Tribunal has added 40% of the assessed income towards the future prospects considering the age of the deceased as 28 years based on the age as mentioned in the postmortem report, which also does not call for any interference and it is in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Learned Claims Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and has also, applied the multiplier of 17 which is also in the tune with the decision in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121. 10. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards the loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards the funeral expenses which is in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the loss of consortium but has awarded Rs. 10,000/- each to the Appellants No. 1 to 3 towards loss of love and affection which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC. According to the decision of Nanu Ram (Supra), the Appellants No. 1 to 3 are entitled for loss of parental consortium at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- each. 11.For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants. 12. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.4000/- 5 and since at the time of death, the deceased was 28 years old, therefore, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the income of deceased is required to be enhanced by 40% towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.5600/- (4000+1600). Thus annual income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the compensation comes to Rs.67,200/- (5600 x 12). Out of this amount, one-third is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and after deducting one-third, annual loss of income of deceased would come to Rs.44,800/- (67,200 - 22400). By applying multiplier of 17, as applied by the Claims Tribunal, to annual income, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.7,61,600/- (44,800 x 17). Besides this, Appellants No.1 to 3 are entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards parental consortium, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance (Supra). Further, they are also entitled for Rs. 15,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.9,11,600/- (7,61,600 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000). This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 13. 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. 6 14. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakkamma Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2021) 20 SCC 797, it is directed that the appellant will not be entitled for the interest on the additional amount of compensation for the delayed period, which is 829 days.
Decision
15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 16. Certified copy as per rules. Dey Sd/-- -------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge