Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Local Office v. R. Plaza
Case Details
1 YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.14 18:52:43 +0530 2025:CGHC:40636 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1626 of 2017 1 - Smt. Anjormati Yadav W/o Late Sh. Santosh Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Telsara, O P Chakarbhata Camp, Police Station Chakarbhata, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Purnima Yadav D/o Late Sh. Santosh Yadav Aged About 12 Years Minor Represented Through Their Mother Namely Smt. Anjormati Yadav, R/o Village Telsara, O P Chakarbhata Camp, Police Station Chakarbhata, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Karan Yadav S/o Late Sh. Santosh Yadav Aged About 10 Years Minor Represented Through Their Mother Namely Smt. Anjormati Yadav, R/o Village Telsara, O P Chakarbhata Camp, Police Station Chakarbhata, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Payal Yadav D/o Late Sh. Santosh Yadav Aged About 8 Years
Legal Reasoning
Minor Represented Through Their Mother Namely Smt. Anjormati Yadav, R/o Village Telsara, O P Chakarbhata Camp, Police Station Chakarbhata, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ku. Gauri Yadav D/o Late Sh. Santosh Yadav Aged About 6 Years Minor Represented Through Their Mother Namely Smt. Anjormati Yadav, R/o Village Telsara, O P Chakarbhata Camp, Police Station Chakarbhata, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Pili Bai Yadav W/o Late Sh. Puni Ram Yadav Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Telsara, O P Chakarbhata Camp, Police Station Chakarbhata, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. versus ... Appellants 2 1 - Sukh Ram Mehar S/o Kanak Ram Mehar, Aged About 23 Years Cast - Mochi, R/o Village Telsara, O P Chakarbhata Camp, Police Station Chakarbhata, Tahsil Bilha District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shantanu Prasad Mandray S/o Tileshwar Prasad Mandray Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Telsara, O P Chakarbhata Camp, Police Station Chakarbhata, Tahsil Bilha District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - I. C. I. C. I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Local Office V. R. Plaza, 2nd Floor, Near Deep Hotel, Link Road, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Regional Branch Office Vanijaya Bhawan, Devendre Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : None For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Tessy Abraham, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge 12.08.2025 Judgment on Board 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 08.03.2017 passed by the learned IXth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.520/2015 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimants. 2. Brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that, on 28.08.2014, deceased Santosh Yadav was returning to his village Telsara from Chakarbhata on his motorcycle along with co-villager Siya Ram 3 Yadav. Near village Telsara Air-strip, a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG10-NA-9154, driven rashly and negligently by non-applicant No.1 Sukh Ram Mehar, came from the opposite direction and collided head-on with the deceased’s motorcycle. On account of which, Santosh Yadav sustained grievous injuries and later died during treatment at CIMS, Bilaspur. Siya Ram also suffered injuries. 3. The claimants have filed a claim petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.52,00,000/- pleading therein that at the time of the accident, Santosh Yadav was 35 years old, working as a Hamali and earning approximately Rs.15,000/- per month. 4. Non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte due to non- appearance. 5. The Insurance Company (non-applicant No.3) filed its written statement, denying the occurrence of the accident and alleging violation of policy terms, stating that the driver did not hold a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident, and sought dismissal of the claim petition. 6. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, Claims Tribunal held that the deceased was aged about 36 years on the date of accident and earning Rs.4,500/- per month. While deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses and after applying the multiplier of 15, awarded an amount of Rs.6,07,500/- towards loss 4 of dependecy. Learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs.25,000/- towards other conventional heads, as such awarded total compensation of Rs.6,32,500/- to the claimants with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. He further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in law in not awarding any amount to towards future prospects. It has been contended that learned Claims Tribunal has failed to award the proper amount of compensation under the various heads and therefore, the award deserves to be altered in order to fulfill the needs of the claimants. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company/respondent No.3 submits that on the date of accident, driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licnece, as such, Insurance Company be exonerated to satisfy its liability to pay the amount of compensation. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 10. Before the learned Claims Tribunal, claimants have pleaded income of deceased to Rs.500-600/- per day while working as Hamali, but they have failed to produced any document in support of the said income and therefore, in such circumstances of case, 5 the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of deceased on notional basis to the tune of Rs.4,500/- per month, i.e. Rs.54,000/- per annum. 11. The legal position now stands settled by virtue of the law declared by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transportation Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. It stands affirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157. Even though, it has been observed by the Claims Tribunal that the deceased was 36 years of age. In the instant case, since the accident occurred was in the year 2014, and the Tribunal has rightly reckoned the income of deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month, i.e. Rs.54,000/- per annum while doing the work of Hamali. Going by the rulings rendered by the Apex Court as cited above, in the case of persons of less than 40 years of age without fixed income, 40% of the income has to be added for fixing the future prospects, which comes to Rs.75,600/- per annum. After deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses, annual income of deceased comes to Rs.56,700/-. After applying the multiplier of 15, the loss of income of deceased comes to Rs.8,50,500/-. 12. The scope of 'consortium' has been subsequently explained by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130. It can be of three types; Parental consortium (payable to children 6 because of the death of parents); Spousal consortium (payable to the surviving spouse because of the death of the partner) and Filial consortium (payable to the parents because of the death of children). This being the position, the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- towards loss of consortium. Further, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is payable towards funeral expenses in view of the law declared in Pranay Sethi (supra). As per the decision rendered in Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants/claimants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Further, 10% enhancement in every three years is also required to be given in respect of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium in view of the dictum rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, (2020) 11 SCC 1. 13. On the basis of above recalculation, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Sl. No. 1. Head Calculation Awarded amount Income of deceased @ Rs.4,500/- per month Rs.54,000/- per annum 2. 40% of (1) above to be added as future prospects 3. 1/4th of (2) deducted personal the as expenses of deceased 54,000 + 21,600 = Rs.75,600/- 75,600 / 4 = Rs.18,900/- = Rs.56,700/- 4. Compensation after 1,44,000 x 15 Rs.8,50,500/- multiplier applied of 15 5. Towards estate loss of 6. Towards loss of consortium to all the six claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- 7. Funeral Expenses 7 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years 40,000 + 8,000 = 48,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years Total Compensation Awarded Rs.18,000/- Rs.2,88,000/- Rs.18,000/- Rs.11,74,500/- 14. In the said circumstance, the total compensation comes to Rs.11,74,500/-. After deducting Rs.6,32,500/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.5,42,000/-. 15.
Decision
In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein- above. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs.5,42,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The other conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 16. Since it is an admitted fact that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, the 8 Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the claimants as modified by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 17. Record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent. Yogesh Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge