2 - Virendra Gupta S/o Late Shriram Gupta Aged About 50 Years 3 v. 1 - Abhishek Rawlani S/o
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:33144 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 1 - Smt. Sumitra Gupta W/o Virendra Gupta Aged About 44 Years MAC No. 1361 of 2019 2 - Virendra Gupta S/o Late Shriram Gupta Aged About 50 Years 3 - Kumari Kiran Gupta D/o Virendra Gupta Aged About 23 Years All are R/o Nehru Chowk, Camp-1, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh --- Appellants versus 1 - Abhishek Rawlani S/o Shri Anup Rawlani Aged About 23 Years R/o 122- B, Sunder Vihar Colony, Behind Nalanda School, P. S. Jamul, Bhilai Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Car No. Cg-07, B. C. 2502) 2 - Anup Rawlani S/o Late K. C. Rawlani Aged About 47 Years R/o 122-B, Sunder Vihar Colony, Behind Nalanda School, P. S. Jamul, Bhilai Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Car No. Cg-07, B. C. 2502) 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Car No. Cg-07, B. C. 2502) ….Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Siddhant Das, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sayed Mazid Ali, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Respondent No.1 and 2 : None present though served. Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.23 10:56:49 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 15/07/2025 1. Claimant/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District – Durg (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 22.04.2019 passed in Claim Case No.41/2018 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.11,68,811/- as compensation in a death case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming total compensation of Rs.90,00,000/- under different heads against the death of Akash Gupta, who died in the road accident, pleading therein that on 18.10.2017, Akash Gupta was returning to his home at Durg from Rajnandgaon in a car bearing registration number CG-07-BC- 2502 along his friends, Rijan Baiju and Abhishek Ravlani. While passing near the Hanuman Temple in Mahmara Road, non-applicant No.1 by driving the said car in a rash and and negligent manner caused an accident. As a result of the accident, Akash Gupta suffered grievous injuries and during treatment succumbed to the injuries. It was also pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased was 22 years of young boy, he was working in Laxmi Motors and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The claimants were dependent upon him and due to his untimely death they are facing great financial crises. 3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2 filed their reply denying the pleadings made 3 in the application. It was contended that Akash Gupta neither suffered any injuries from the offending vehicle nor he died as a result of the said accident. The offending vehicle was duly insured with non- applicant No.3 and applicant No.1 was holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. Non-applicant No.3 filed its reply resisting the pleading in claim application. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, non-applicant No.1 was not having valid and effective driving license. The offending vehicle was being plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.11,68,811/- and fastened the liability upon non-applicant No.3/ Insurance Company to indemnify the insured. 5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation assessing the income of the deceased on lower side overlooking the nature of occupation as pleaded in the claim application and the date of accident. It is further contended that learned Claims Tribunal failed to award any amount towards loss of consortium to the appellants. He prays for enhancement of award suitably. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants and would submit that learned Claims Tribunal in absence of any proof of nature of occupation and income of deceased has correctly assessed the 4 income of the deceased on notional basis. He submits that the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 7. There is no representation on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 though served. 8. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 9. Perusal of the record of claim case would show that date of accident is 18.10.2017. Claimants except the self serving statement before the Claims Tribunal has not produced any clinching and reliable evidence to prove the nature of occupation and income of the deceased. In the aforementioned facts of the case, learned Claims Tribunal has taken correct step of assessing the income of the deceased on notional basis, however, erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month only, overlooking the date of accident as 18.10.2017. For assessing the income of the deceased on notional basis, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the factors like rise in price index, place of resident, date of accident and the wages prevailing at the place where deceased was resident of. The learned Claims Tribunal could have also taken note of minium wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. 10. In the case at hand, there is no suggesting piece of evidence to prove 5 the wages given on the date of accident at the place where the deceased was resident of. Hence, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased treating him to be labourer taking help of the minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for that period. The deceased was resident of Bhilai, District – Durg, which falls within the category of Zone of -A area and the minimum wages of unskilled labour of A- zone area is fixed by the authority for the period from 01.10.2017 to 31.03.2018 as Rs.8,320/- per month. Hence, the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.8,320/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 11. The deceased on the date of accident was 22 years of age as mentioned in the postmortem report, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal justified in adding 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects, which is in consonance with the decision of of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 12. Learned Claims Tribunal has rightly applied the deduction of 1/2 towards personal living expenses as the deceased was unmarried on the date of accident and the application of multiplier of 18 by the learned Claims Tribunal is in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, 13. The learned Claims Tribunal has though awarded Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, which is to the tune of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi 6 (supra), however, the learned Claims Tribunal fell into error in not awarding any compensation under the head of loss of consortium to the claimants, who are parents and sister of the deceased. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 has explained the types of consortium and held that there are three types of loss of consortium i.e. loss of spousal consortium for widow/widower, loss of parental consortium to the children and loss of filial consortium to parents. Hence, the appellant No.1 & 2 being the parents of the deceased are entitled for filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. There is no dispute with respect to the compensation awarded towards medical expenses of Rs.2,31,611/-, therefore, it is affirmed. 14. On the basis of above, the compensation calculated by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Annual income : 8,320 x 12 = 99,840.00 2. Addition of 40% towards future : 99,840.00 + 39,936.00 = 1,39,776.00 prospects 3. 1/2 deduction towards personal : 1,39,776.00 – 69,888.00 = 69,888.00 expenses 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 18 5. For loss of filial consortium to the appellants No.1 and 2 6. For funeral expenses 7. For loss of estate 8. Towards medical expenses Grand Total : 68,880 x 18 = 12,57,984.00 : : : : : 80,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,99,595.00 2,31,611.00 15.
Decision
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be 7 entitled for total compensation of Rs.15,99,595.00. Any amount paid to the appellant as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram