Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.04.09 18:14:12 +0530 2025:CGHC:16178 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1206 of 2019 1 - Smt. Manju Chandrakar, W/o Late Sitaram Chandrakar, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Qr. No. 182, Gali No. 5, Ward No. 28, Near Dewangan Kirana Stores, Vijay Nagar, Raipur Police Station - Telibandha, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Jaya Chandrakar, D/o Late Sitaram Chandrakar, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Qr. No. 182, Gali No. 5, Ward No. 28, Near Dewangan Kirana Stores, Vijay Nagar, Raipur Police Station - Telibandha, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Hemant Chandrakar, Aged About 22 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As 24 Years), S/o Late Sitaram Chandrakar, R/o Qr. No. 182, Gali No. 5, Ward No. 28, Near Dewangan Kirana Stores, Vijay Nagar, Raipur Police Station - Telibandha, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Aman Sagar, S/o Bharat Sagar, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Gali No. 2, Aman Nagar, Telibandha, Police Station - Teligbanda District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Rajesh Tandi, S/o Pitambar Tandi, Aged About 34 Years, R/o In Front of A. S. G. I. Hospital, Anupam Nagar Road, Ramnagar (Shakti Nagar) Raipur, Police Station - Pandri, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Through - Branch Manager, Office - Shop No. 510, 5th Floor, National Park, Commercial Complex, G. E. Road, Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents
Legal Reasoning
For Appellants/Claimants: Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Chittram Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2: None 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (07.04.2025) 1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 01.05.2019 passed by 6th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 624/2017 awarding a compensation of Rs.6,70,800/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum, in favour of the appellants/claimants for their irreparable loss. 2. The averment in the claim petition, is that on 02.12.2016 Sitaram Chandrakar (now deceased) was going from Anand Niketan Marg to his house on his motorcycle, around 11PM, driver/respondent No. 1 of offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04-LL-1450 drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of Sitaram, due to which Sitaram sustained grievous injuries and during treatment died in a hospital. A report of the incident was lodged, based on which offence was registered. It is stated that on the date of the accident, age of the deceased was 52 years, he was doing business and also he was an agriculturist and was earning Rs. 22,000/- per month from his work. Due to the casual death of the deceased, there is an irreparable loss to the appellants/claimants. Therefore, the appellants (wife & children of the deceased) preferred an application before the Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 37,01,500/-. 3. Learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence brought on record, assessed monthly income of the deceased to Rs.6,000, given 10% future prospects, deducted 1/3 income towards personal and 3 living expenses and applied multiplier of 11 and awarded Rs. 5,80,800/-. Furthermore, Rs.90,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal in other heads. Thus, total Rs.6,70,800/- has been awarded in favour of the appellants/claimants with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. 4. While passing the impugned award, as the Tribunal has found that there was a breach of insurance conditions, therefore, the Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company from its liability and fastened the liability upon Respondents No.1 & 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of compensation and for an order of pay and recover. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. He further submits that the claimants have pleaded the income of the deceased as Rs. 22,000/- per month, but the learned Claims Tribunal has only assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month and awarded total compensation of Rs. 5,80,800/- including the amount of other conventional heads of Rs. 90,000/-. The learned counsel urged that the Tribunal erred in not assessing the proper monthly income of the deceased. Learned Counsel further submits that the Tribunal has also awarded lesser amount on other heads, therefore, this appeal may be allowed and amount of compensation may be enhanced suitably. 6. 7. None appeared on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of counsel for respondent No.3 that in view of facts and circumstances of case, the liability fastened by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and required no interference. 4 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 9. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.6,70,800/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 10. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.22,000/-. per month from his business and agriculture work, but no documentary evidence in support thereof has been produced, but it cannot be said that the deceased was not earning anything from his work. Therefore, in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of the deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, wage structure prevailing on the date of accident, price index and cost of living etc. specially notification by Labour Department for minimum wages. Upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 6,206/- per month as minimum wages, at the relevant time of accident i.e. 02.12.2016. The annual income comes to Rs. 74,472/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 10% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 7,447/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 81,919/-. 11. The deceased was aged about 52 years and the claimants are the wife and children of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3 i.e. Rs.27,307/- which dependency comes to Rs. 54,612/- (81919-27307). In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 5 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 11, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 6,00,732/- (54612 x 11). The claimants are further entitled to get Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses and as per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, they are further entitled to get Rs. 40,000/- each for loss of love and affection. Therefore, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 7,50,732/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 02 03 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 6,00,732/- Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Towards love and affection to Rs. 1,20,000/- each claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- 04 Funeral Expenses Total Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 7,50,732/- 12. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 7,50,732/-. After deducting Rs. 6,70,800/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 79,932/-. 13. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. 14. As far as the question of ‘pay and recover’ is concerned, in the case, the offending vehicle was found to be insured but the insurance company was exonerated from its responsibility due to violation of insurance conditions. The appellants/claimants requested for an order of pay and recover which was opposed by the insurance company. 6 15. In the present case, admittedly, the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.3 but due to breach of policy conditions, the insurance company has been exonerated. However, considering the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh & another. Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited & others reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558, ordering the insurance company to pay first and then recover and also taking note of the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly the fact that at the time of accident the vehicle was insured with insurance company, it is directed that the Insurance Company shall first pay the amount of compensation awarded to the appellant/claimant and then recover the same from the owner/driver of the offending vehicle. 16.
Decision
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 17. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants resides. Shubham Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge