Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh v. 1
Case Details
1 ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2025:CGHC:46023 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1008 of 2018 1 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Branch Office - Anupama Chowk, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Non Applicant No. 3), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Sanjana Mishra Wd/o Late Anil Mishra, Aged About 46 Years Brahimin By Caste- R/o Village Bastar, Farsapara, Kokamunda Farm Road, Tahsil And P.O. Bastar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Applicant No.1), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Neha Mishra, D/o Late Anil Mishra, Aged About 18 Years Brahimin By Caste- R/o Village Bastar, Farsapara, Kokamunda Farm Road, Tahsil And P.O. Bastar, Districtg Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Applicant No.2), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Nikita Mishra, D/o Late Anil Mishra, Aged About 15 Years Minor
Legal Reasoning
Through Her Mother Smt. Anjana Mishra (Respondent No. 1), Brahimin By Caste- R/o Village Bastar, Farsapara, Kokamunda Farm Road, Tahsil And P.O. Bastar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Applicant No.3), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Ganpat Ram Kashyap, S/o Sanpat Kashyap, Aged About 28 Years 2 R/o Village Taragaon, Tahsil Bastar, P.S. Bhanpuri P.O. And District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Non Applicant No. 1), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Pratik Nayar S/o K.M. Nayar, Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Bardebhata, Kanker, P.O. And P.S. Kanker, Tahsil Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh. (Registered Owner) (Non Applicant No. 2), District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1236 of 2018 1 - Smt. Sanjana Mishra W/o Late Anil Mishra Aged About 45 Years Caste Brahman, R/o Village Bastar Pharsapara, Kokamunda Farm Road, Tahsil Post And District- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Neha Mishra D/o Late Anil Mishra Aged About 18 Years Caste Brahman, R/o Village Bastar Pharsapara, Kokamunda Farm Road, Tahsil Post And District- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Nikita Mishra D/o Late Anil Mishra Aged About 15 Years Minor Hence She Is Represented Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sanjana Mishra W/o Late Anil Mishra, Caste Brahman, R/o Village Bastar Pharsapara, Kokamunda Farm Road, Tahsil Post And District- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh........(Claimants), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Ganpat Ram Kashyap S/o Sanpat Kashyap Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Taragaon, Tahsil Bastar Police Station Bhaanpuri Post And District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 2 - Prateek Nair S/o K. M. Nair Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Bardebhata, Tahsil Post., Police Station And District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3 - United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Branch Manager, Branch Office Anupama Chowk, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh.....(Non-Applicants), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate for their respective parties. Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 09.09.2025 Order on Board 1. Since both the appeals are arising out of the same impugned order, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and decided by this common order. 2. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by challenging the award dated 19.04.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur District Bastar (CG) in Claim Case No.79/2017, by which against a claim of Rs.53,50,000/- sought by the appellant/claimant, compensation of Rs. 37,23,276/- has been awarded on account of the death in an accident which took place on 25.10.2016 by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle, bearing registration No. CG-19-BD-9006. 3. As per claim application, on 25.10.2016 at about 5:45 p.m., Mohit 4 Mishra, while riding his motorcycle bearing registration no. CG-17- KH-4078, was proceeding towards Manjhipara main road, Bastar, when he was allegedly hit in a rash and negligent manner by Respondent No. 4, who was driving motorcycle bearing registration no. CG-19-BD-9006. As a result of the collision, Mohit Mishra sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to the same. Thereafter, the mother and sisters of the deceased (Respondent Nos. 1 to 3) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 53,50,000/- against Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and the appellant Insurance Company. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed their written statement denying the allegations and contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself, who, according to them, was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of the incident; they also claimed that the insurer and owner of the vehicle driven by the deceased were necessary parties. The appellant Insurance Company also contested the claim, inter alia, on the grounds that the deceased was solely responsible for the accident, that Respondent No. 4 did not possess a valid driving license, and that the claim involved contributory negligence. The appellant thus sought dismissal of the claim petition. Upon due enquiry, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 37,23,276/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, in favour of the claimants (Respondent Nos. 1 to 3) and against the appellant Insurance Company. 5 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company respectfully submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is bad in law and liable to be set aside or suitably modified. It is submitted that the accident in question was a result of a head-on collision between the motorcycle driven by the deceased and the motorcycle driven by Respondent No.4, clearly indicating contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The learned Tribunal failed to appreciate this aspect and ought to have held the deceased equally responsible for the accident, thereby reducing the quantum of compensation accordingly. Further, the learned Tribunal erroneously assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.22,798/- instead of Rs. 20,666/-, which led to an inflated computation of compensation. The Tribunal also awarded interest at a higher rate, which is not justified. Moreover, the deceased was not holding a valid and effective driving
Decision
license at the time of the accident. In view of the above, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is excessive, erroneous, and deserves to be reduced to the extent permissible under the law. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant respectfully submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in not appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective, which has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. It is submitted that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in holding that the deceased expended 6 50% of his income on himself, without adequate basis or consideration of the family structure and dependents. The Tribunal further failed to appreciate the documentary evidence on record, particularly the registration certificate of the Kirana shop, which clearly established that the deceased was running a business in addition to his regular employment, thereby contributing a higher income to the household. The learned Tribunal has also erred in deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses, which is excessive and not in consonance with the settled principles of law, especially considering that the deceased was unmarried and had dependent family members. Furthermore, the Tribunal awarded a meager amount towards funeral expenses and loss of estate, which does not reflect the actual financial and emotional loss suffered by the Claimants. The Tribunal has also failed to grant any compensation under the head of loss of love and affection, despite the irreparable loss suffered by the mother and sisters of the deceased. In view of the foregoing submissions and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the impugned award may suitably be enhanced in the interest of justice, considering the same and award of compensation of on all other head is also on a very lower side. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the documents available on record. 7 7. The first question before this Court pertains to the issue of contributory negligence. Upon careful examination of the record, there is no evidence to establish contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The material on record indicates that the case involves composite negligence. Accordingly, this Court finds no valid ground to entertain the plea of contributory negligence in the present matter. 8. The second question raised before this Court relates to the assessment of the deceased’s income, which the trial Court has erroneously fixed at Rs. 22,798/- instead of Rs. 20,666/-. A perusal of the documents on record, particularly paragraphs 26 and 27 of the trial Court’s judgment, reveals that while the gross salary of the deceased was stated to be Rs. 22,798/-, the net salary was clearly mentioned as Rs. 20,666/-. The trial Court erred in considering the gross salary figure for compensation calculation instead of the net salary. In the interest of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to rectify this error and fix the income of the deceased at Rs. 20,666/-. 9. With regard to the issue of enhancement, it is pertinent to note that the claimants have filed a separate appeal bearing MAC No. 1236 of 2018. The learned Tribunal erred in failing to adequately grant compensation under the heads of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate, contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay 8 Sethi , 1 where it was held that compensation awarded should be enhanced by 10% for every three years from the date of filing the appeal. The Tribunal’s failure to apply this principle warrants interference and appropriate enhancement. 10. Accordingly, in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors.2 this Court reassesses the compensation in the following manner:- Sn. No. 1. 2. 3. Particular Awarded by this Court Annual Income of the Deceased Future Prospect (40% of the annual income) Total Annual Income Rs.2,47,992/- (Rs.20,666/- x 12) Rs.99,197/- (2,47,992/-x 40%) Rs.3,47,189/- (Rs.2,47,992/- + Rs.99,197/-) 4. Deduction Towards Personal Rs.1,73,595/- Rs.3,47,189 / 2) Expenses 50% 5. Multiplier of x 18 (total loss of income) Rs.31,24,710/- (Rs.1,73,595/- x 18) 6. 7. 8. Loss of Consortium (with 10% enhancement in every three years) For Loss of Estate (with 10% enhancement in every three years) For Funeral Expenses (with 10% enhancement in every three years) Rs.1,44,000/- (Rs.48,000/- x 3 ) Rs.18,000/- Rs.18,000/- Total compensation Rs.33,04,710/-