Kanker, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Kalimuddin S/o Karimuddin Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Bhiragaon, Thana and
Case Details
1 A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2025:CGHC:18923 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1267 of 2019 1 - Sukaru Ram Mandavi S/o Late Samrath Mandavi Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Sirsangi, Than Tadoki, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Kalimuddin S/o Karimuddin Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Bhiragaon, Thana and Tahsil Bhanupratappur, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh (Driver).
Legal Reasoning
2 - Shripal Chopda S/o Rupchand Aged About 30 Years R/o Sambalpur, Thana Bhanupratappur, District U.B. Kanker Chhattisgarh (Owner). 3 - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through Branch Manager, Near Adarsh Bal Mandir, Dhamtari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh (Insurer). ... Respondents For the appellant For Respondent No.2 For respondent no.3 : : : Mr. Alok Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Chetan Singh Chauhan, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 25 /04/2025 2 1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed challenging the award dated 20.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bhanupratappur, Distt. Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, in Claim Case No. 39/2018. 2. As per the pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant is father of the deceased Siyaram. On 17.08.2018, when the deceased Siyaram Mandavi was going towards Antagarh on his motorcycle, respondent no.1 who was driving the offending Truck No.C.G.19-BG/9051 rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of deceased due to which he sustained grievous injuries on head and other parts of his body and died on the spot. The claimant father being legal heir of deceased filed claim application seeking a total compensation of Rs. 45,30,000/- on various heads. 3. The learned claims Tribunal on appraisal of the evidence brought on record and the pleadings made in application, took the monthly income of deceased as Rs.4500 i.e., 54,000/- per annum, added 40% future prospects, deducted one-half towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of 17 and thus computed the total dependency to be Rs. 6,42,000/-. In addition, Rs. 30,000/- has been granted on other heads. Thus the Tribunal held that the claimant is entitled to receive the the total compensation of Rs. 6,72,600/- from respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally. However, it fastened the primary responsibility on the insurance Company to pay the compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side as it inadequately took the 3 monthly income of deceased as Rs.4500/- for determining the compensation. He further submits the amounts granted on other heads are also not sufficient, therefore, the compensation awarded may be enhanced suitably. 5. Learned counsels for respondent no.2 & 3 i.e., owner and insurance company support the award and submit that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has granted just compensation which needs no interference. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 8. As regards the income of deceased, the claimant pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month by doing the work of Head- Mason per month but no documentary evidence in support thereof has been produced. However, it cannot be said that the deceased was not earning anything from his work. Therefore in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, minimum wage rate structure being followed by the State and other relevant factors such as price-index and cost of living etc, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 8100/- as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages prevalent on the date of accident. Thus, the annual incomes comes to Rs.97,200/- (Rs.8100 x 12). So far as future prospects is concerned, as per the National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, considering the deceased was aged about 27 years, after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e.,38,880/-, the annual income would come to Rs.1,36,080/- (97,200 plus 38,880). 4 9. The deceased was unmarried and the claimant is his father so the deduction towards personal expenses would be one-half and after deducting one-half, the annual dependency would come to Rs.68,040/-. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Suprme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC l2l considering the age of deceased, multiplier 17 is applied and thus the total loss of dependency is worked out to Rs.11,56,680/- (68,040 x 17). Under the other heads, the claimants are 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, AIR Online 2018 SC, the claimant is entitled to get Rs.40,000/- for loss of love and affection. Therefore, the claimants would become entitled for a total
Decision
compensation of Rs.12,26,680/-. In view of the above discussion, this this Court is recomputing the compensation as follows : 1. 2. 3. 4. Total loss of dependency Loss of estate Loss of Love and affection (Rs.40000 x 1) Funeral expenses Total Rs. 11,56,680/- Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Rs.12,26,680/- 10. Hence the total compensation is recalculated to Rs.12,26,680/- from which after deduction of Rs. 6,72,600 as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.5,54,080/-. The claimant is entitled for enhanced amount of Rs. 5,54,080/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realisation. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. 5 12. 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 para-legal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area where the claimants reside. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge Rao