Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:39567 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.12 18:52:02 +0530 MAC No. 1323 of 2018 1 - Santosh S/o Late Jatilal Joshi Aged About 25 Years R/o Harinbhattha, Post And Police Station Simga, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ashwani S/o Late Jatilal Joshi, Aged About 23 Years R/o Harinbhattha, Post And Police Station Simga, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. 3 - Bhanmati D/o Late Jatilal Joshi Aged About 20 Years R/o Harinbhattha, Post And Police Station Simga, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Ramvilash S/o Ramkhilavan Sahu R/o New Khursipar Shankarpara, Bhilai, Police Station Bhilai - 3, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Gagan Singhaniya S/o Late O.P. Singhaniya, R/o L.B. 17 Padumnagar, Bhilai - 3, Police Station Bhilai - 3, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - National Insurance Co. Ltd, Through Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., J.E. Road Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate For Insurance Company : Mr. Qamarul Aziz, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 07.08.2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 06.12.2017 passed
Legal Reasoning
by the learned 4th Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional 2 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.548/2014 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimants. 2. Brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that, on 25.07.2014 at about 7.15 PM, in front of Anand Hotel, Simga, one vehicle bearing registration No.CG-07/CA/0265 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’) driven by non-applicant No.1 dash the Tricycle of Jatilal Sahu, due to which he fell down and succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. 3. The claimants have filed a claim petition claiming Rs.11,75,000/- as compensation under various heads pleading therein that at the time of accident, deceased was aged about 50 years and earning Rs.7,500/- per month by selling some nuts at Bus Stand, Simga. 4. Non-applicant No.1/driver of the offending vehicle has filed his written statement pleading therein that on the date of accident, he was possessed with valid and effective driving licence and the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, as such, the liability, if any would be upon the Insurance Company. 5. Non-applicant No.2/owner of the offending vehicle has filed his separate written statement denying the pleadings made in the claim application and pleaded that claimants have claimed excessive amount of compensation, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. It was further 3 pleaded that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, as such, the liability, if any would be upon the Insurance Company. 6. The Insurance Company filed its written statement wherein it denied the averments made in the claim petition and further pleaded that the claimants have claimed an excessive amount of compensation. It was also contended that although the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company on the date of the accident, it was carrying an explosive article, i.e., diesel, which amounted to a breach of the policy conditions. Furthermore, it was pleaded that the offending vehicle did not have a valid registration certificate, permit, or fitness certificate; therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 7. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, Claims Tribunal held that the deceased was aged above 50 years on the date of accident and earning Rs.4,000/- per month. While adding 25% towards future prospects, deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses and after applying the multiplier of 13, awarded an amount of Rs.4,80,000/- towards loss of dependecy. Learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs.30,000/- towards other conventional heads, as such awarded total compensation of Rs.5,10,000/- with interest @ 7.5% 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. 8.
Legal Reasoning
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 loss of consortium and therefore, the award deserves to be altered in order to fulfill the needs of the claimants. 9. 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 fitness and permit of the offending vehicle and there was breach of policy conditions, 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. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 11. Before the learned Claims Tribunal, claimants have pleaded income of deceased to Rs.7,500/- per month by the work of Mason, but has not produced any evidence with respect to place of work of deceased or any documentary evidence with respect to salary or income of deceased. The claimants have failed to prove 5 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 25.07.2014, therefore, looking to minimum wages rate prevailing in the Districts and State, it will be proper to hold engagement of deceased in labour work and his income to be assessed to Rs.5,468/- per month. 12. 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 National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157. Even though, it has been observed by the Claims Tribunal that the deceased aged above 50 years of age, there is no conclusive proof with regard to the age. 13. In the instant case, since the accident occurred was in the year 2014, and the Tribunal has reckoned the income of deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month, i.e. Rs.48,000/- per annum, which is on the lower side. Even if it is to be treated that the deceased was working as a Labour, then also looking to the price index and the wages prevailing at that relevant time, the monthly income of the deceased would be reckon to Rs.5,468/- per month i.e. Rs.65,616/- per annum. Going by the rulings rendered by the Apex Court as cited above, 25% of the income has to be added for fixing the future prospects, which comes to Rs.82,020/- per annum. After 6 deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses, annual income of deceased comes to Rs.54,680/-. After applying the multiplier of 13, the loss of income of deceased comes to Rs.7,10,840/-. 14. 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% increase in every three years is also required to be given in respect of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium. 15. On the basis of above recalculation, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Sl. No. Head Calculation Awarded amount 1. Income of deceased Rs.65,616/- per 7 @ Rs.5,468/- per month annum 2. 25% of (1) above to be added as future prospects 3. 1/3rd of (2) deducted personal the as expenses of deceased 65,616 + 16,404 = Rs.82,020/- 82,020 / 3 = Rs.27,340/- = Rs.54,680/- 4. Compensation after 13 of multiplier applied 5. Towards estate loss of 6. Towards loss of consortium to all the three claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- 7. Funeral Expenses 54,680 x 13 Rs.7,10,840/- 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.8,90,840/- 16. In the said circumstance, the total compensation comes to Rs.8,90,840/-. After deducting Rs.5,10,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.3,80,840/-. 17.
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.3,80,840/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced 8 amount will carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The other conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 18. 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. 19. Record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent. Yogesh Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge