Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 / 6 2025:CGHC:15096 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M A C No. 1133 of 202 0 1. Miss Nawalbati Baghel D/o Late Bhursuram Baghel Aged About 14 Years 2. Master Kuleshwar S/o Late Bhursuram Baghel Aged About 11 Years 3. Buday Baghel S/o Late Shamnath Baghel Aged About 60 Years Appellants No. 1 & 2 are Minor, therefore Represented through Natural Guardian Buday Baghel (Grandfather) (Since Parents of the Appellant No. 1 and 2 passed away as on today) All are R/o Village Kolchur Post Kolchur District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Appellants/ Claimants versus 1. Dilip Chauhan @ Dula S/o Salikram Chauhan Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Banjarapara Munjala Sonarpal Post Sonarpal District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Driver of the Vehicle) 2. Golchand Nayak S/o Late Dharuram Nayak Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Banjarapara Munjala Sonarpal Post Sonarpal District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Owner of the Vehicle) 3. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through Branch Manager, Branch Office Anupama Chowk Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ____________________________________________________________
Legal Reasoning
For Appellants For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate --- Respondents Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 28/03/2025 PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 03.02.2020 passed by Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar, District Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 164/2019, whereby learned 2 / 6 Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) in part and awarded total sum of Rs. 10,75,500/- as compensation in death case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that Bhursu Ram Baghel used to do work of farming, labourer and vegetable selling. On 23.05.2019 at about 6.30 pm when deceased Bhursu Ram Baghel was going to his residence after selling vegetables from Jagdalpur on cycle, non- applicant no. 1, driving vehicle Innova No. CG17KF2222 (“offending vehicle”) rashly and negligently hit the deceased from behind on the road while going from Jagdalpur to Kondagaon, due to which Bhursu Ram Baghel received serious injuries. While taking him to the hospital for treatment, he died on the way. Complaint of the said accident was lodged, based upon which Crime No. 291/2019 for alleged offences under Section 279, 337, 304'A' IPC was registered in Police Outpost Bastar. 3. Appellants, widow (since died), children and mother of deceased, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking Rs. 22,28,000/- as compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was about 40 years of age, was an able bodied person, was the sole breadwinner of the family. At the time of the accident, the deceased was earning a monthly income of Rs. 10,000/- by doing work of farming, labourer and selling vegetables and maintaining himself, his wife, his mother and minor son and daughter. 4. 5. Non-applicant 1 & 2/ Respondent No. 1 & 2- driver and owner of the offending vehicle did not appear before the Claims Tribunal and they were proceeded ex parte. Non-applicant No. 3/ Resp. No. 3-Insurance Company in its reply, apart from accepting the undisputed facts, has denied the pleadings made in the 3 / 6 application and further stated that non-applicant No. 1 was driving the vehicle without a valid and effective driving license in violation of the conditions of the insurance policy and non-applicant No. 2, the owner of the vehicle had not paid the insurance policy premium under Section 64VB under the Insurance Act and hence non-applicant No. 3 is not liable to pay compensation to the appellants and prayed that the claim application filed against it be dismissed. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Bhursu Ram Baghel died because of injuries suffered due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant 1. Breach of conditions of the insurance policy and contributory negligence was not found to be proved. Tribunal holding the non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation amount, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded Rs. 10,75,500/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 7. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre sum of compensation of Rs. 10,75,500/-. He contended that learned Claims Tribunal disbelieved the occupation and income of deceased pleaded and stated by the appellants-claimants and has erroneously taken income as Rs. 6,000/- per month treating him to be a labourer. He contended that the deceased used to earn a monthly income of Rs. 10,000/- by doing farming, labourer and selling vegetables for earning livelihood for himself and his family, therefore, the income as pleaded in the application ought to have been taken for calculating amount of compensation. He contended that even if the occupation and income of deceased is not proved in accordance with law, then learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken the wages as prevailing on the date of accident in terms of notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages 4 / 6 Act, 1948. It is next contended that learned Claims Tribunal has erroneously awarded lower amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- towards consortium to appellants who are children and mother of deceased as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent 3-Insurance Company would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellants and further submits that the appellants failed to prove the occupation and the income of deceased by bringing cogent and reliable piece of evidence, hence, the Claims Tribunal has rightly taken the income on notional basis treating the deceased to be labourer. The amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference of this Court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 10. Sofar as, the submission of learned counsel for the appellants with regard to assessment of income of the deceased in concerned, accident was of 23.05.2019, occupation of deceased is pleaded as vegetable vendor and agriculturalist. True it is that the appellants-claimants failed to produce any admissible piece of evidence to prove income of deceased. But for assessing income on notional basis, factors like date of accident, age of deceased, wage structure, price index etc. are to be taken into consideration. In the said facts of the case, the occupation of deceased can only be treated as a unskilled labourer for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. Therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to take the amount of wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The monthly wages fixed by the competent authority for ‘C’ Category City (Bastar city) is Rs. 7800/- per month. Upon taking into consideration the aforementioned 5 / 6 factors, particularly the date of accident, age of deceased and nature of occupation to be labourer, I find it appropriate to assess income of deceased as Rs. 7800/- per month instead of Rs. 6000/- per month as assessed by the Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. 11. In the case at hand, deceased was 45 years of age on the date of accident as held by Tribunal, hence, there will be addition of 25% of established income in the income of deceased for assessing total income of deceased for purpose of calculating compensation as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 has issued guidelines for deducting personal and living expenses based on number of dependents upon deceased and held that where the dependents are two to three, there will be deduction of 1/3rd and where the number of dependents are 4 to 6 there will be deduction of 1/4th as the case may be. In the instant case, there are 4 dependents, hence, there will be deduction of 1/4th of the income of deceased towards personal and living expenses. It is ordered accordingly. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded less amount of Rs. 20,000/- to each appellant towards consortium who are children and mother of deceased which needs to be enhanced in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nanu Ram (supra). Appellants- claimants shall further be entitled for amount of compensation on other conventional heads as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra).
Decision
12. For the foregoing reasons, I find it appropriate to recompute the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimants as under. 13. Income of deceased is assessed as Rs. 7,800/- per month ie. Rs. 93,600/- per annum. Upon adding 25% of the income of the deceased towards future 6 / 6 prospects, yearly income of deceased on the date of accident will come to Rs. 1,17,000/-. After deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses, annual loss of dependency will come to Rs.87,750/-. Upon applying multiplier of 14 to the annual loss of dependency as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) as the deceased was about 45 years of age on the date of accident, total loss of dependency will come to Rs. 12,28,500/- [Rs.87,750x14]. Besides the amount of compensation towards loss of dependency, appellants-claimants shall further be entitled for Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium as already awarded by the Tribunal, Rs. 40,000/- each to appellant No. 1 & 2 towards loss of parental consortium, Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of filial consortium, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. 14. Now the appellants-claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of Rs. 14,18,500/- [Rs. 12,28,500 + Rs.40,000 + Rs.40,000 + Rs.40,000 + Rs.40,000 + Rs.15,000 + Rs.15,000] instead of Rs. 10,75,500/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. Aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount paid to the appellants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. 15. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. pwn Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge