Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.06.30 19:03:48 +0530 2025:CGHC:28715 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1301 of 2018 1 - Smt. Urmila Singh Wd/o Late Arvind Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o House No. 412, Nutan Jewelers Road, Sarora, Police Station Urla, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kishan Singh S/o Late Arvind Singh Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Urmila Singh, R/o House No. 412, Nutan Jewelers Road, Sarora, Police Station Urla, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Pawan Singh S/o Late Arvind Singh Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Urmila Singh, R/o House No. 412, Nutan Jewelers Road, Sarora, Police Station Urla, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh versus ... Appellants 1 - Naresh Kumar Sahu S/o Kartik Ram Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Ravanbhata, Mandir Hasaud Ghasiram Nagar, Bhilai, Police Station Jamul, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Truck No. Cg 04 G 6311 ) 2 - Sunil Kumar Agrawal S/o K.C. Agrawal, R/o Agrawal Transport, New Khursipur, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Truck No. Cg 04 G 6311 ) 3 - National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Office, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ( Insurer Of Truck No. Cg 04 G 6311 ) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents 2 For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : None For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 27.06.2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 21.02.2018 passed by the learned Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.07/2016 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimants. 2. Brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that, on 07.11.2015, at about 6.00 PM, Arvind Kumar Singh (since deceased) along with his friend was travelling on his motorcycle and when they reached near Super Dharamkanta, Ring Road No.2, Sarora, at that relevant time, respondent No.1 while driving the Truck bearing registration No.CG-04-G-6311 (in short ‘offending vehicle’) dashed the motorcycle from rear side, as a result of which, both of them were fell down and succumbed to the injuries suffered by them on the spot. 3. The claimants have filed a claim petition claiming Rs.39,75,000/- as compensation under various heads pleading therein that at the time of accident, deceased was aged about 38 years, working as 3 Fitter at Mahamaya Steel Industries Limited, Raipur and earning Rs.15,000/- per month as salary. 4. Respondents No.1 and 2/non-applicants No. 1 and 2 were proceeded ex-parte before the learned Claims Tribunal. 5. The respondent No.3 filed its written statement in which it has denied the contents of the petition and further stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence as well as vehicle was not having valid permit, as such there was violation of breach of policy conditions. It has been further pleaded that there was contributory negligence on the part of driver of both the vehicles and Insurance Company was not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 6. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, Claims Tribunal held that the deceased was aged about 38 years on the date of accident and earning Rs.7,000/- per month. While adding 50% towards future prospects, deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses and after applying the multiplier of 15, awarded an amount of Rs.12,60,000/- towards loss of dependecy. Learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs.70,000/- towards other conventional heads, as such awarded total compensation of Rs.13,30,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization and fastened the 4 liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the driver, owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. He further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in law in not awarding any amount to the sons of the deceased towards loss of consortium. It has been contended that learned Claims Tribunal has failed to award the proper amount of compensation under the various heads and therefore, the award deserves to be altered in order to fulfill the needs of the claimants. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that on the date of accident, driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licnece, as such, Insurance Company be exonerated to satisfy its liability to pay the amount of compensation. He further submits that after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Claims Tribunal has passed just compensation to the claimants, which needs no interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 10. Before the learned Claims Tribunal, claimants have pleaded income of deceased to Rs.15,000/- per month while working in Mahamaya Steel Industries Limited, Raipur, but has not produced 5 any evidence with respect to salary or income of deceased. The claimants have failed to prove income as pleaded in their claim application, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of case, income of deceased is to be assessed on notional basis. The date of accident was 07.11.2015, therefore, looking to minimum wages rate prevailing in the Districts and State, it will be proper to hold engagement of deceased in semi skilled work and his income to be assessed to Rs.7,000/- per month. 11. The legal position now stands settled by virtue of the law declared by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transportation Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. It stands affirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Even though, it has been observed by the Claims Tribunal that the deceased was 38 years of age, there is no conclusive proof with regard to the age. Based on the available materials, the Court reckon the same as 38 years as contended by the claimants. In the instant case, since the accident occurred was in the year 2015, and the Tribunal has reckoned the income of deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month, i.e. Rs.84,000/- per annum while doing the work of Fitter at Mahamaya Steel Industries Limited. Going by the rulings rendered by the Apex Court as cited above, in the case of persons of less than 40 years of age with fixed income, 50% of the income has to be added for fixing the future prospects, which comes to Rs.1,26,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses, annual income of deceased comes 6 to Rs.84,000/-. After applying the multiplier of 15, the loss of income of deceased comes to Rs.12,60,000/-. 12. The scope of 'consortium' has been subsequently explained by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130. It can be of three types; Parental consortium (payable to children because of the death of parents); Spousal consortium (payable to the surviving spouse because of the death of the partner) and Filial consortium (payable to the parents because of the death of children). This being the position, the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of consortium. Further, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is payable towards funeral expenses in view of the law declared in Pranay Sethi (supra). As per the decision rendered in Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants/claimants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Further, 10% enhancement in every three years is also required to be given in respect of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium. 13. On the basis of above recalculation, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Sl. No. 1. Head Calculation Awarded amount Income of deceased @ Rs.7,000/- per month Rs.84,000/- per annum 2. 50% of (1) above to 84,000 + 42,000 7 be added as future prospects = Rs.1,26,000/- 3. 1/3rd of (2) deducted personal the as expenses of deceased 1,26,000 / 3 = Rs.42,000/- Rs.84,000/- 4. Compensation after 15 of multiplier applied 5. Towards estate loss of 6. Towards loss of consortium to all the three claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- 7. Funeral Expenses 84,000 x 15 Rs.12,60,000/- 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years 40,000 + 8,000 = 48,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years Total Compensation Awarded Rs.18,000/- Rs.1,44,000/- Rs.18,000/- Rs.14,40,000/- 14. In the said circumstance, the total compensation comes to Rs.14,40,000/-. After deducting Rs.13,30,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.1,10,000/-. 15.
Decision
In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein- above. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs.1,10,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 8% from the date of enhancement of 8 the award till its realization. The other conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 16. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the claimants as modified by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 17. Record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent. Yogesh Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge