Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.01 11:43:52 +0530 2025:CGHC:28331 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 407 of 2021 1. Smt. Ritu Dewangan Wd/o Late Vijay Dewangan Aged About 33 Years R/o Near Water Tank, Indra Gandhi Ward, No. 7, Near Sangita Hardware , Birgaon, Police Station Urla, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Ku. Prerna D/o Vijay Dewangan Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Her Guardian / Natural Mother Namely Smt. Ritu Dewangan Wd/o Late Vijay Dewangan , R/o Near Water Tank, Indra Gandhi Ward, No. 7, Near Sangita Hardware , Birgaon, Police Station Urla, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Puna Ram Dewangan S/o Late Lalu Ram Dewangan Aged About 71 Years R/o Near Water Tank, Indra Gandhi Ward, No. 7, Near Sangita Hardware , Birgaon, Police Station Urla, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
4. Smt. Rukhmani Dewangan W/o Puna Ram Dewangan Aged About 62 Years R/o Near Water Tank, Indra Gandhi Ward, No. 7, Near Sangita Hardware , Birgaon, Police Station Urla, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Ashok S/o Kabu Singh R/o Near Gyan Repairing Sharda Chowk, Near Madan Mahal Bedi Nagar, Police Station Gada, Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh. (Driver Of Vehicle Bearing Registration No. Mp 20 Hb 0511), District : Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh 2. Smt. Jyoti Kale Wd/o Late Jagdish Lal Aged About 61 Years R/o Bedi Nagar, Nagpur Road Madan Mahal , Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh. (Driver Of Vehicle Bearing Registration No. Mp 20 Hb 0511) 3. National Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Office , G.E. Road , Near Lal Ganga Shopping Maal , Raipur , Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) 2 For Appellants For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Rupendra Dewangan, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate : Mr. Prasanjeet Dutta, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 27. 06.2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 02.01.2012 passed by the 3rd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur, in Claim Case No. 36/2011, wherein, an award of Rs. 4,30,000/- was passed along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the application in favor of the claimants. 2. The facts of the present case are that on 07.09.2010 at about 6.00 pm, the driver of the offending Truck bearing registration No. MP 20 HV 0511, dashed the Tata Sumo bearing registration No. 04 H 0795, consequently, Vijay Dewangan sustained injuries and died. The claimants in the claim application pleaded that at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was 26 years and he was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month by working with Vijay Transmission Private Limited, Kanhera (Urla) company. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed their reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition. The learned tribunal framed issues; the parties led evidence and thereafter, the learned tribunal passed the award. 3 3. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned tribunal has awarded a meagre amount and failed to consider the monthly income of the deceased while assessing the dependency part. He would further submit that the learned tribunal has not awarded proper compensation for the loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate. He would contend that the learned tribunal has not considered the future prospects. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 would oppose. He would submit that the learned tribunal has passed a just and proper award. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Perusal of the record would show that the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 26 years and he was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month, but the claimants could not prove the income part and the learned tribunal rightly considered the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month. 7. With regard to the multiplier and deduction, the learned trial Court has rightly applied the multiplier of 17 and deducted 1/3rd for the personal expenses of the deceased. 8. Perusal of the award would further show that the learned tribunal has awarded a meager amount for the loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium i.e. 5,000/- on each head, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court, in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. Likewise, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered 40% additional sum of the loss of dependency towards loss of future prospects for the non-salaried person who are aged between 0-39 years. Therefore, in the present case, the applicable 4 percentage of future prospects would be 40%. 9. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the compensation payable to the claimants is hereby re-visited as under:- Sr. No. Particular 1. Monthly income of the deceased Awarded by the Court Rs. 3,000/- 2. Annual Income Rs. 36,000/- 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12 Multiplier of 17 applied Rs. 6,12,000/- Future Prospects @ 40% Rs. 2,44,800/- towards Deduction personal expenses @ 1/3 Rs. 2,85,600/- Total Loss of Income Rs. 5,71,200/- Loss of Consortium Funeral Expenses Rs. 1,60,000/- (4 x 40,000) Rs. 15,000/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Total Amount awarded by the Tribunal Enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 7,61,200/- Rs. 4,30,000/- Rs. 3,31,200/- 10. For the foregoing reasons, the amount of compensation of Rs. 4,30,000/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 7,61,200/-. Hence, the appellants/claimants are held entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.3,31,200/-. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. 11. The Insurance Company/respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 5 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With regard to the interest part, there has been a considerable delay in filing this appeal; thus, the interest should not be admissible for the period of delay which is 2904 days. The rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. $iddhant Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge