Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 / 6 2025:CGHC:22734 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1452 of 2019 • Kumari Payal Patil D/o Late Gabbar @ Kanak Patil Aged About 12 Years Mother's Name Is Late Sunita Patil, Occupation - Student, Minor, Represented Through Legal Guardian Maternal Uncle - Dudheram Patil S/o Mohan Patil Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village- Chilfi, Tahsil And Police Station - Saja District - Bemetara At Present Resident Of Village- Bhaisbod, Tahsil And Police Station - Bilha, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. versus --- Appellant/ Claimant 1. Ramdinesh Gandharv S/o Horilal Gandharv Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- District- Mungeli, Sargaon, Chhattisgarh........ (Driver Of Motorcycle Passion Pro No. C.G.-10-P-3426). Chowki- Sargaon, Tahsil- Patharia, 2. Kamalesh Kumar Gandharv S/o Horilal Gandharv Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Sargaon, Chowki- Sargaon, Tahsil - Patharia, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh......... (Owner Of Motorcycle Passion Pro No. C.G. 10-P-3426) 3. I.C.I.C.I. Lambard Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, V.R. Plaza, Second Floor, Link Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mrs. Diksha Jaiswal, Advocate on behalf of
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Goutam Khetrapal , Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate --- Respondents Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 09/06/2025 PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 1. Appellant/ claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation challenging the impugned award dated 25.06.2019 passed by 2 / 6 Learned Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 6/2017, whereby learned 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 ₹ 9,26,800/- as compensation. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 24.06.2014, when Sunita Patil was travelling on the motor cycle Passion Pro No. CG-10- P-3426 driven by non-applicant No. 1 from Bilaspur, on the way on Raipur- Bilaspur road near Hardi, non-applicant No. 1 drove the motor cycle rashly and negligently and dashed the motor cycle with a tree standing on the road side, and caused accident. In the accident, Sunita Patil suffered serious head injuries, and she died during treatment at Mekahara Hospital, Raipur on 29.06.2014. The said accident was reported to the concerned police station and based on which Crime No. 151/2016 has been registered against non- applicant no.-1 for alleged offence under Section-304 -A of IPC. 3. Appellant who is minor girl child aged about 12 years of deceased Smt. Sunita Patil, through guardian Maternal Uncle Shri Dudheram Patil, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking ₹ 23,96,000/- as compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was about 28 years of age, was an able bodied person. She was doing labourer and agricultural work and was earning ₹ 9,000/- per month. The deceased was the only earning member in the family. No reply has been filed on behalf of Respondents No. 1 & 2/ non- applicants No. 1 & 2 before the Claims Tribunal. There is no representation on behalf of Respondents No. 1 & 2, though served. Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance company of the motorcycle filed its reply to the application, while denying all the pleadings 4. 5. 3 / 6 made in the application, it was further pleaded that no accident has occurred by the motorcycle and if during the trial the court finds that the accident occurred with the insured vehicle, then it has been stated that the non-applicant No. 1/ driver of the Motor Cycle Passion Pro No.-CG-10-P.- 3426, was not possessed with a valid driving license on the date of the accident, which is violation of the conditions of insurance policy. It is stated that the deceased was the wife of non-applicant no.1, due to which she had the status of owner of the vehicle. It is the legal responsibility of the non-applicant no. 1 and 2 and the officer in charge of the police station to inform the insurance company after the accident along with all the documents. In absence of information, insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Smt. Sunita Patil died because of grievous injuries suffered in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending motorcycle by non-applicant 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was found to be proved, and calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 9,26,800/- as total compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application, fastened liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon non-applicant No. 1 & 2/ Respondent No. 1 & 2 jointly and severally. 7. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre sum of compensation of ₹ 9,26,800/-. He contended that learned Claims Tribunal disbelieved the occupation and income of deceased pleaded in the application and has erroneously taken income as ₹ 6,000/- per month. He contended that at the time of accident, deceased was aged about 28 years, doing labourer work and earning ₹ 300-400/- per day, therefore, the income as pleaded in the application ought to have been taken for calculating 4 / 6 amount of compensation, her income would have definitely increased in future. Hence, the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent 3-Insurance Company would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellant and further submits that the appellant 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 of deceased on notional basis treating the deceased to be labourer. The amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case 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. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant with regard to assessment of income of the deceased is concerned, accident was of 24.06.2014, occupation of deceased is pleaded as labourer. True it is that the appellant-claimant failed to produce any admissible piece of evidence to prove occupation and 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. Courts/ Tribunal can also take the help of notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act to assess wages. 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. As per the notification issued by the competent authority, the minimum wages prevailing for an unskilled labourer during the period of accident is around ₹ 6,000/- per month, which is not disputed by the counsel for Respondent No. 3. Upon taking into 5 / 6 consideration the aforementioned factors, particularly the date of accident, age of deceased and nature of occupation to be labourer, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of deceased as ₹ 6,000/- per month ie., ₹ 72,000/- which does not call for any interference and it is affirmed. 11. In the case at hand, deceased was 28 years of age on the date of accident as held by Tribunal. Learned Claims Tribunal in paragraph 20 of the award has calculated annual income of deceased by adding 40% of established income in the assessed income of deceased for the purpose of calculating compensation, which cannot be said to be erroneous in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased should be applied towards future prospects where the deceased was below 40 years and an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable. Further, as the appellant-claimant is the only daughter of the deceased survived by her deceased mother, therefore, Tribunal has applied deduction of 1/2 towards personal and living expenses towards loss of dependency and applied multiplier of 17, which cannot be said to be erroneous in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 where Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued guidelines for deducting amount towards 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 is only one claimant, accordingly, deduction of 1/2 of the income of deceased towards personal and living expenses has been applied. And similarly for the age group 6 / 6 between 26 to 30 years, the correct multiplier would be 17. Learned Claims Tribunal has further appropriately awarded compensation of ₹ 40,000/- towards towards loss of parental consortium 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. Further, the Claims Tribunal has awarded ₹ 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and ₹ 15,000/- towards loss of estate, which also cannot be said to be erroneous in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 12.
Decision
In view of the above discussion, learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding compensation of ₹ 9,26,800/- to the appellant. 13. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. pwn Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge