Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:13514 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No.917 of 2018 Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 1 - Smt. Kanak Sahay Wd/o Shyamji Sharan Sahay, Aged About 64 Years R/o Dubey Colony Mova, House No. 2 B, Street No. - 4, Thana - Mova, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Prakhar Sahay S/o Shyamji Saran Sahay, Aged About 19 Years R/o Dubey Colony Mova, House No. 2 B, Street No. - 4, Thana - Mova, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh versus Appellants 1 - Manoj Kumar S/o Rajkumar, Through Prabhjit Singh, S/o Harjit Singh, R/o Sai Vihar, Mahavir Nagar, In Front Of Gurudwara, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Non Applicant No. 1/ Driver Of Truck No. C.G. 04/fa/6100), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Prabhjit Singh, S/o Harjit Singh, R/o Sai Vihar, Mahavir Nagar, In Front Of Gurudwara, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Non Applicant No. 2/ Owner Of Truck No. C.G. 04/fa/6100), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
3 - Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Through Divisional Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., 4th Floor Maruti Heights, G.E. Road Raipur, Thana Telibandha, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Non Applicant No. 3/insurer Of Truck No. C.G. 04/fa/6100), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 And MAC No.1086 of 2018 Respondent(s) 1 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Through Authorized Officer , Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, 4th Floor, Maruti Heights , G E Road, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer Of Truck No. Chhattisgarh 04 - F A / 6100 ), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh versus Appellant 1 - Smt. Kanak Sahay W/o Late Shyam Ji Sharan Aged About 64 Years R/o Dubey Colony, Mova House No. 2/b, Gali No. 4 -, Thana - Mova Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Claimants ), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Prakhar Sahaya S/o Late Shyam Ji Sharan Aged About 19 Years R/o Dubey Colony, Mova House No. 2/b, Gali No. 4 -, Thana - Mova Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Claimants ), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Manoj Kumar S/o Rajkumar C/o Prabhjeet Singh S/o Harjeet Singh R/o Sai Vihar Mahavir Nagar, Opposite Gurudwara, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Driver Of Truck No. C G 04-F-A /6100), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Prabhjeet Singh S/o S/o Harjeet Singh R/o Sai Vihar, Mahavir Nagar, Opposite Gurudwara, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Owner Of Truck No. C G 04-F-A/6100), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate in MAC No.917/2018 and Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate in MAC No.1086/2018 For Respondent(s) : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate for respondent 3 No.3 in MAC No.917/2018 and Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2 in MAC No.1086/2018 Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 21/03/2025 1. Since both these appeals arise of common award and claim case number, therefore, the same are heard together and are being decided by a common order. 2. MAC No.917/2018 has been filed by the claimants/appellants on this ground that the award amount is on the lower side, whereas MAC No.1086/2018 has been filed by the appellant insurance company against the impugned award, whereby the liability to pay compensation to the claimants has been levied upon the appellant insurance company. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.03.2014 at about 11:00 O’clock, in front of Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur, the Vehicle No.CG 04/FA/6100 was being driven rashly and negligently by Non applicant No.1 Manoj Kumar and hit the vehicle of Shyamjı Sharan Sahay, which resulted grievous injuries to Shyamji Sharan and during treatment he died. Subsequently, the claim case was filed by the claimants, who are the wife and son of the deceased, before the learned Tribunal, which has been partly allowed and the claimants have been 4 awarded Rs.3,27,381/- and liability to pay the said amount has been fixed upon the insurance company. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant in MAC No.917/2018 submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in appreciating and ascertaining the correct monthly income and future prospects of the deceased which has caused great injustice to the claimants. The learned Tribunal has erred in not awarding compensation under various heads such as loss of estate, loss of love and affection and loss of consortium while for estate at least 1,00,000/- should have been given, for lost of love and affection 75,000/- should have been given to appellant no.2 and for loss of consortium 75,000/- should have been given to appellant no.1 Therefore the award deserves to be modified and the claimants be paid enhanced amount of compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant in MAC No.1086/2018 submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is patently erroneous, contrary to the facts, circumstances and evidence on record and is bad in law. The eye witness brought on record cannot be believed as he is not the witness to the alleged accident and he is not the eye witness in the criminal case. He has been tutored and examined in order to obtain compensation. There is no corroboration with the criminal records. Hence the appellant cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. The learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence led by the appellant with regard to the fact that the offending vehicle was 5 not involved in the accident. It has been categorically brought on record by prudent evidence that the offending vehicle was made involved in the accident in order to obtain compensation; hence the appellant cannot be held liable for compensation. The Learned Tribunal did not appreciate that from perusal of the evidence of the appellant particularly the documents of the appellant it is evident on record that the offending vehicle was made involved in the accident in order to obtain compensation. The evidence brought on record clearly shows that alleged accident occurred by an unidentified vehicle therefore the appellant cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. The learned tribunal overlooked the vital fact that the deceased was taken to hospital at about 7:30 pm whereas in FIR the time of accident is mentioned as 11 pm. The accident did not happen with the offending vehicle and the deceased died due to fall from motorcycle, which is evident from the medical papers submitted. 6. Learned counsel for the parties in both the appeals objected to each other’s arguments. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is clear from the record of the learned Tribunal that the claimant No.1 Kanak Sahay is the mother of claimant No.2 Prakhar Sahay and wife of the deceased Shaymji Saran and the claimant No.2 is the son of the deceased Shaymji Saran Sahay. The learned Tribunal after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence 6 found that the deceased Shyam Sunder died in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the non applicant No.1 Manoj Kumar. 9. The appellant insurance company has filed certified copies of criminal case, which makes it clear that the FIR was lodged on 16.03.2014 against truck driver bearing No.CG04-FA-6100 and after investigation, charge sheet was filed against the non applicant No.1. The insurance company examined two witnesses and filed documents (Ex-D/1 to D/4) and stated that as per hospital record, the deceased was admitted in Balaji Hospital at about 8:10 pm and the deceased died at about 11 pm, whereas the accident is said to have occurred according to FIR at 11 pm so according to documents Ex-D/1 to D/3, it is proved that the alleged accident did not occur with the offending vehicle. 10. It is clear from the record that the non applicant No.1 driver did not appear before the learned Tribunal as witness and eye witness Jai Prakash Verma (PW-2) clearly stated that the truck No.CG-04-FA-6100 dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, as a result of which he sustained severe injuries and thereafter died. It is also evident that after investigation, the Police filed charge sheet against the non applicant No.1. The learned Tribunal also found that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Truck No.CG-04-FA-6100. The finding of the learned Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence so this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in 7 the award passed by the learned Tribunal, as such the appeal filed by the insurance company i.e. MAC No.1086/2018 is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. As regards appeal filed by the claimants i.e. MAC No.917/2018, it is clear that the Tribunal calculated the notional income of the deceased as Rs.6000/-. It is clear that the date of incident is 15.03.2014 and at that time, the deceased was about 70 years of age, as such the learned Tribunal rightly applied multiplier of 5 and also rightly deducted 1/3rd of the amount as personal expenses as he was having two dependents and total amount of Rs.327,381/- was awarded in favour of the claimants including Rs.17,381/- as medical expenses, but it is clear that the learned Tribunal only awarded Rs.70,000/- in other heads and as per guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the claimant/appellant No.1 is entitled for loss of consortium, whereas the appellant No.2 is entitled for loss of love and affection, likewise loss of estate and funeral expenses also ought to have been awarded. Thus, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Head Loss of consortium Loss of love and affection Loss of estate Funeral expenses Total Amount awarded Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.40,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.1,70,00/- 8 Since the claimants were already awarded Rs.70,000/- on few heads, as such after deducting the said amount from the amount of Rs.1,70,000/-, the claimants are entitled for total enhanced amount of Rs.1 Lakh, which shall be paid by the appellant insurance company within a period of 2 months from the date of this order. This additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its actual realization. The amount received by the claimants, if any, shall be adjusted in the enhanced sum. 12. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants/appellants i.e. MAC No.917/2018 is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. Nirala Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge