High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
-1- 2025:CGHC:18533 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR MAC No. 987 of 2020 1 - Purnima Bai W/o Late Keshav Kashyap, Aged About 37 Years 2 - Sunita D/o Late Keshav Kashyap, Aged About 17 Years 3 - Sukrita D/o Late Keshav Kashyap, Aged About 15 Years 4 - Baijnath S/o Late Keshav Kashyap, Aged About 13 Years 5 - Priyanka D/o Late Keshav Kashyap, Aged About 11 Years 6 - Rameshwar S/o Joidha Ram, Aged About 70 Years Appellants No. 2 to 5 are minor, and presented Through: their Mother Purnima Bai, W/o Late Keshav Kashyap, All are by Caste: Kashyap, R/o Village Kanai, Bhatapara, Police Station And Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ..................Claimants ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Naklu Ram S/o Chhattu Ram Tambe, Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Kanai, Chunmunipara, Police Station And Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh..............… (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle) 2 - Shiv Shankar Sahu S/o Budhram Sahu, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Lachhanpur, Basantpur, Police Station And Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh..............… (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle), 3 - Royal Sunderam General Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Branch Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.04.28 15:15:36 +0530 -2- Manager, Branch Office, Office No. 306, 3rd Floor, Mova, Beside Over Bridge, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ...............(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle) __________________________________________________________ .. Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) For Resp. No.1 & 2 : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate None appears though served : For Resp. No.3 behalf of Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate _______________________________________________________ Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate on S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 24/04/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally at admission stage. 2. This is the claimant’s appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Janjgir-Champa (CG) vide award dated 11.04.2019 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.70 of 2018. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that claimants/appellants filed an application under Sections 166 of the Act of 1988 pleading therein that on 14/03/2018 at around 08.00 p.m., Keshav Kashyap was returning to his home from outside the village. When He reached near Nandu Kashyap's house, non- applicant No.1 Nakalu Ram, driving Auto no. CG-11/AA-4093 rashly and negligently, dashed against Keshav Kashyap. As a result of the accident, the Keshav Kashyap suffered serious injuries on his head and other parts of the body. He was taken to District Hospital, Janjgir for treatment. After that, he was taken to the district hospital, -3- Janjgir. Later he was taken to CIMS Hospital Bilaspur, from where he was referred to New Korba Hospital, Korba for treatment, where he was admitted for about 1 month. Later, he died on 15/04/2018. At the time of the accident, the age of Keshav Kashyap was 45 years. He was earning Rs. 15,000/- monthly by working as a Mason and maintaining himself and the applicants. The applicants/claimants being wife, children and father of deceased have prayed for grant of compensation of Rs. 42,60,000/- from the non-applicants. 4. Non-applicant No. 1 and 2 have filed a joint written statement denying the pleadings made in the claim application and they stated that non-applicant No.1 was returning home with a passenger as usual. In fact the deceased was already lying on the road after colliding with another vehicle. Non-applicant No. 1 helped the deceased. They have also stated that the deceased died due to an accident caused by his own negligence. Therefore, the applicants are not entitled to receive any compensation. The said Auto was insured by non-applicant No. 3. Therefore, if any award is passed in favor of the applicants, then the entire responsibility of its payment lies with non-applicant No. 3 insurance company. 5. Non-applicant No.3 also filed its written statement denying all the facts mentioned in the claim application and has made an additional statement that no accident occurred due to the negligence of non-applicant No. 1. Non-applicant No. 1 did not have a valid and effective license to drive an auto vehicle. The -4- vehicle was being used without fitness and permit, contrary to the condition of registration. Therefore, non-applicant No. 3 is not liable to pay compensation due to violation of the terms of insurance. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non- applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which Keshav Kashyap suffered grievous injuries and died during course of his treatment. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found proved, learned Claims Tribunal held non-applicants liable to pay the amount of compensation jointly and severally. Assessing income of the deceased as Rs.7,500/- per month, awarded total compensation of Rs.12,79,250/ -. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants raises a short point for enhancement of the amount of compensation, that while considering the income of the deceased who was stated to be working as Mason, learned Claims Tribunal has only considered the decision of this Court in MAC No.1599 of 2017 and MAC No.1469 of 2017 decided on 24.01.2018 wherein the income of the deceased- Mason was held as Rs.250/- per day and Rs.7500/- per annum and only on that basis, income of the deceased- Mason was assessed as Rs.7500/- per month. Learned Claims Tribunal erred in not considering the date of accident and minimum wages prevailing on the date of accident, as also not considered the fact that deceased was a ‘skilled labourer’. It is the contention of -5- learned counsel for the appellant/claimants that the learned Claims Tribunal while computing the amount of compensation erred in not adding compensation towards future prospects in the income of the deceased as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680. He further submits that no amount towards loss of consortium has been awarded to appellant/claimants No. 2 to 5 being children of the deceased and appellant/claimant No.6 being father of the deceased. He prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation suitably. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respective respondent/Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and submits that the amount of compensation awarded is just and proper in the facts of the case and it does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. 10. Undisputedly, non-applicant No.1 is the driver of offending vehicle, which caused the accident, the owner of the offending vehicle is non-applicant No. 2 and the insurer of said vehicle is non-applicant No. 3. 11. So far as the ground raised by learned counsel for the appellants with regard to assessing income of the deceased is concerned, even if the deceased Shiv Kumar Kashyap is to be treated as Labourer, in absence of admissible piece of evidence with respect to occupation and income of deceased as pleaded in the claim -6- application, then also it is for the Tribunal to assess income of deceased treating him to be labourer considering the wages prevailing, price index, cost of living and as per the minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 12. For the purpose of assessing income of deceased on notional basis in absence of any specific evidence, this Court finds it appropriate to take help of the Notification issued by the Commissioner and Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. In the Notification for ‘Class-C zone/area’ for ‘unskilled labourer’, monthly income has been prescribed as Rs.7,800/- per month. In absence of admissible piece of evidence of occupation and income of deceased, on the date of accident, if the deceased is to be treated as Labourer, his income should not have been less than Rs.7,800/- per month (minimum wages fixed by competent authority), hence, the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.7,800/- per month instead of Rs.7,500/- per month as held by learned Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. Further, as on the date of accident i.e. 14.03.2018 deceased Shiv Kumar Kashyap was aged about 45 years, therefore, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), there shall be an addition of 25% in the assessed income of the deceased towards loss of future prospects. It is ordered accordingly. Learned Claims Tribunal looking to the number of dependents of the deceased and his age, applied deduction of ¼ towards personal and living expenses and applied multiplier of 14 which in the opinion of this Court does not warrant any interference. -7- 13. Further, from perusal of the impugned award, it is reflecting that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards loss of consortium to appellants/claimants No. 2 to 5 being children of the deceased and to appellant/claimant No.6 being father of the deceased, therefore, I find it appropriate to award parental consortium of Rs.40,000/- to each of appellant/claimant No.2 to 5 being children of the deceased and filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- to appellant/claimant No.4 being old aged father of the deceased as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130. 14. For the foregoing discussions and the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court as above, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. (A) Loss of Income/dependency 7800 x 12 = 93,600 (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 25% (93600 x 25% =23,400) 93600 + 23400 = 1,17,000 (C) Deduction of ¼ towards personal and living expenses (1,17,000x 1/4 =29,250) 117000- 29250 = 87,750 (D) Multiplier of 14 87750 x 14 = 12,28,500 Rs. 12,28,500 2. 3. 4. Expenses incurred in treatment Transportation/conveyance expenses Funeral Expenses : : : (+) Rs. 2,54,250 (+) Rs. 10,000 (+) Rs. 15,000 -8- 5. 6. 7. 8. Loss of Estate Loss of spousal consortium to claimant No.1/wife of deceased Loss of Parental Consortium of Rs.40,000/- each to claimants No. 2 to 5 being children of the deceased Filial Loss of Consortium of Rs.40,000/- to claimant No.4 being father of the deceased : : : (+) Rs. 15,000 (+) Rs. 40,000 (+) Rs. 1,60,000 : (+) Rs. 40,000 Total compensation : Rs. 17,62,750 15. Now the appellants/claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs.17,62,750/- instead of Rs.12,79,250/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 16. Aforementioned total amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8 % per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.
Decision
17. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/--/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen