Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:18431 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1081 of 2020 1 - Smt. Laxmi Poyam W/o Late Vijlu Kuhrami Aged About 24 Years (Father Hidma), Caste Madiya, R/o Vill. Kilepal, P.S. Kodenaar, Distt. Bastar (Chhattisgarh), District : Bastar (Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Mithu Kuhrami S/o Konda Kuhrami Aged About 45 Years Caste Madiya, R/o Vill. Kilepal, P.S. Kodenaar, Distt. Bastar (Chhattisgarh), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Jogi Kudmi (Kuhrami) W/o Mithu Kudmi (Kuhrami) Aged About 44 Years Caste Madiya, R/o Vill. Kilepal, P.S. Kodenaar, Distt. Bastar (Chhattisgarh), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Jayram S/o Mithu Aged About 18 Years Caste Madiya, R/o Vill. Kilepal, P.S. Kodenaar, Distt. Bastar (Chhattisgarh), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Ku. Jamli S/o Mithu Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Father App. No. 02, Caste Madiya, R/o Vill. Kilepal, P.S. Kodenaar, Distt. Bastar (Chhattisgarh), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 6 - Tulsi S/o Mithu Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Father App. No. 02, Caste Madiya, R/o Vill. Kilepal, P.S. Kodenaar, Distt. Bastar (Chhattisgarh), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh Versus ... Appellants 1 - Somaru Ram Kuhrami S/o Paaklu Kuhrami Aged About 23 Years Caste Madiya, R/o Vill. Bade Kilepal, P.S. Kodenaar, Distt. Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar (Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 2 - Denga S/o Late Lakhmu Caste Madiya, R/o Vill. Kilepal P.S. Kodenaar, Distt. Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager The New India Insurance Co. Ltd Akashwani Road Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (Chhattisgarh), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Vikash A Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Qumrul Aziz, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge 23/04/2025 Order On Board 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 24.01.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, District – Baster (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 140/2019. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 10.02.2019 at about 03:30 P.M., when Vijlu Kohrami (who was working as Mason) was walking beside the road, at that time, Tractor bearing Registration No. CG 05 A 1675 which was being driven by the Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed Vijlu Kohrami and thereafter, ran over him due to which, he sustained grievous injuries and he succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Subsequent to the said accident, an FIR was lodged against the Respondent No. 1 bearing Crime No. 11/2019 at P.S. Kodenar, District – Bastar for the offence punishable under Sections 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. On the date of incident, the deceased was 25 years of age. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased i.e. Vijlu Kohrami to 3 only Rs. 6,000 p.m. disbelieving the nature of occupation and the income of the deceased as Mason and earning Rs. 13,000 p.m. He also contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount of compensation towards the future prospects and not awarding the amount of compensation on other conventional heads as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 would oppose the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that the appellants failed to prove the nature of occupation and the income as pleaded in the application by placing cogent and admissible piece of evidence and therefore, has assessed the income of the deceased on notional basis, treating the appellant as ‘Labourer’. Hence, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal with respect to the nature of occupation and the income of the deceased does not call for any interference and the amount of compensation awarded in the facts of the case is just and proper. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the appeal and the copy of the award passed. 6. The short question involved in this appeal is with regard to seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. 7. So far as the submission of the counsel for the appellant with respect to the nature of occupation and the income assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal is concerned, though, there is a pleading made by the 4 applicant that the deceased who was aged about 25 years was doing the work of Mason and earning Rs. 13,000/- p.m., however, there is no acceptable piece of evidence brought on record by the appellants. Perusal of the impugned award shows that, to prove the income of the deceased, the Appellant No. 1 (wife of the deceased) is examined and no other witnesses have been examined by the appellants. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I do not find any illegality or error in the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal with respect to the occupation of the deceased, to be ‘Labourer’. 8. So far as the income of ‘Labourer” is concerned, in absence of any admissible piece of evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal or the Court are required to assess the income of a person on notional basis considering the price index, wage structure and may also take the help of notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. As per the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the year 01.10.2019 to 30.03.2020, the wage structure for the employees working in ‘C’ category city is Rs. 7,800/-. Hence, considering the place of residence of the claimants and the income as notified for unskilled labourer as Rs. 7,800/-, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased as Rs. 7,800//- per month instead of Rs. 6,000/- as assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 9. So far as the next submission of the counsel for the appellant that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding the amount of compensation towards the future prospects is concerned, law in this regard is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned 5 case has held that where the deceased is below 40 years of age, 40% of the assessed income is to be added towards future prospects in cases of self-employment. Deceased was under self-employment.. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled for addition of 40% of the assessed income i.e. Rs. 10,920/- (7800 + 40%). 10. The other submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding Rs. 40,000/- only to the Appellant No. 1 towards loss of spousal consortium and awarding meager amount of compensation towards filial consortium is concerned, the award of other conventional heads and filial consortium apart from the loss of dependency was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and Nanu Ram (Supra) wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that apart from the loss of dependency, the claimants/legal representatives are entitled for loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses to the tune of Rs. 40,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- each. 11. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nanu Ram (Supra) has explained the types of consortium, to the spouse, children and parents and held that each of the legal representatives as mentioned above are entitled for amount of Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of spousal consortium, loss of parental consortium and loss of filial consortium, it is ordered accordingly. 12. For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants. 13. Accordingly, the income of deceased as mentioned above is enhanced by 40% towards future prospects, which comes to Rs. 10,920/-. Thus annual income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the 6 compensation comes to Rs.1,31,040/- (10,920 x 12). Out of this amount, one-third is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and after deducting one-third from the annual income, annual loss of income of deceased would come to Rs.87,360/- (1,31,040 – 43,680). By applying multiplier of 18, as applied by the Claims Tribunal, to annual income, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.15,72,480/- (87,360 x 18). Besides this, Appellants No. 2 & 3 are entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nanu Ram (Supra). Further, they are also entitled for Rs. 15,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.17,22,480/- (15,72,480 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000). This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 14. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above.
Decision
15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 16. Certified copy as per rules. Dey Sd/-/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge