Nafr High Court
Case Details
-1- REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH 2025:CGHC:12023 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 638 of 2021 1 - Smt. Sharda Rathiya Wd/o Late Naresh Rathiya Aged About 31 Years R/o Saraipali, Tahsil And District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Saumya Rathiya D/o Late Naresh Rathiya Aged About 5 Years Appellant Being Minor Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Sharda Rathiya W/o Late Naresh Rathiya, R/o Saraipali, Tahsil And District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Surya Singh Rathiya S/o Late Naresh Rathiya, Age About 01 Month, Appellant Being Minor Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Sharda Rathiya W/o Late Naresh Rathiya, R/o Saraipali, Tahsil And District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Kirit Ram Rathiya S/o Ghasiram Rathiya Aged About 60 Years R/o Saraipali, Tahsil And District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Kumari Rathiya W/o Kirit Ram Rathiya Aged About 60 Years R/o Saraipali, Tahsil And District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants/Claimants versus 1 - Dilshad Khan S/o Meena Khan Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Shivhuli, Police Station Amas, District Gaya (Bihar) Present Address - Sitapur Khairpur, Jindal Road Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mo. Mumtaj Abdul Sattar Aged About 50 Years R/o Sitapur Khairpur, Jindal Road Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - New India Insurance Company Ltd., Through Branch Manager New India Insurance Company Ltd., Kewda Badi Near Bus Stand, Beside Sbi Main Branch Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents -2- For Appellants/Claimants For Respondent No.3 For respondents No.1 & 2
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate : None appears though served Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11.03.2025 1) Heard. 2) The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal against the award dated 06.09.2021 passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (C.G.) in Claim Case No.46/2020 for enhancement of compensation. 3) The facts of the present case are that on 31.07.2020 at about 5:00 O’clock when the deceased Naresh Kumar Rathiya was returning home on his motorcycle, the offending vehicle truck bearing registration No.C.G.-13-AF- 0432 dashed him from the backside. Consequently, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death. 4) The claimants, who are parents, wife and children of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs.54,10,000/- on the ground that at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was 30 years and he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as a clerk at Cloth Godown. 5) The driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed their reply and denied the averments of the claim case. The Insurance Company also filed a reply and -3- stated that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving license and there is a breach of the Insurance Policy. 6) Learned Claims Tribunal after recording evidence of the parties found the age of the deceased 25 years as per the postmortem report; the notional income to Rs.8,860/- per month; deducted 1/4th looking to the number of dependents and added 40% additional amount for future prospects and thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.20,89,453/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its realization. 7) Mr. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the learned Tribunal committed an error of law in considering the income of the deceased as Rs.8,860/- whereas the deceased was working as a clerk in the Cloth Godown and the income was duly proved by adducing clinching evidence. He would further submit that in the year 2020, the minimum wage of unskilled labourer was Rs.9,380/- per month. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation to the claimants for the loss of filial & parental consortium and thus, awarded compensation at a lower side. He would pray to recalculate the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8) On the other hand, Mr. Gulati, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Shrivastava. He would submit that the claimants have exaggerated their claims. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has passed the award strictly in accordance with law. He would contend that the claimants -4- could not prove the monthly income of the deceased and on other heads, the Tribunal has awarded proper compensation. He would further contend that the claimants were not entitled to get compensation for the loss of love and affection of Rs.5,000/- and for mental and physical agony of Rs.5,000/-. He would submit that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 10)The issue with regard to the negligence on the part of the offending vehicle has been found proved by the learned Tribunal. The driver of the vehicle had a valid and effective driving license. The offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 and these findings have not been challenged by the Insurance Company by filing an appeal or cross-objection. 11)Admittedly, the deceased was working in the Cloth Godown as a clerk. Thus, it can be presumed that he was an unskilled labourer. Though the claimants could not prove the fixed income of the deceased by adducing evidence but according to the minimum wages prevailing in the State of Chhattisgarh in the year 2020, for unskilled labourer it was Rs.9,380/- whereas the Tribunal has considered the income of Rs.8,860/- and thus, the monthly income of the deceased has not been assessed properly 12)With regard to the loss of consortium, the claimants are entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each plus 10% enhancement after completion of every three years as per the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors, (2017) 16 -5- SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Churhu Ram, 2018 (18) SCC 130. 13)The claimants are not entitled to get compensation for the loss of love and affection and mental agony as argued by Mr. Gulati. 14)Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the compensation is revisited herein below:- S.N. Under the heads Awarded by Tribunal the Enhanced 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Income per month Rs.8,860.02/- Rs.9,380/- Yearly Income Rs.1,06,320.24/- Rs.1,12,560/- 40% Prospect Future 40%= Rs.42,528.096/- 40% = Rs.45,024/- Yearly including prospect income future Dependents/ Deduction 1/4th Yearly income after deduction Rs.1,48,848.336/- Rs.1,57,584/- 1/4th = Rs.37,212.084/- 1/4th = Rs.39,396/- Rs.1,11,636.252/- Rs. 1,18,188/- Multiplier 18 18 of Loss Dependency, yearly income x multiplier Rs.1,11,636.252 x 18 = Rs.1,18,188 x 18 = Rs.20,09,453/- Rs.21,27,384/- 9. Consortium etc. Rs.70,000/- 10. 11 Love and affection Rs.10,000/- On other heads (Parental Consortium + Filial Consortium) Rs.70,000/- + 20% = Rs.84,000/- Rs.40,000/- each) 20% = Rs.48,000/- Rs.48,000/-x4= Rs.1,92,000/- 12. Total award Rs.20,89,453/- Rs.24,03,384/- Rs.24,03,384/- - Rs 20,89,453/- ---------------------------- Rs.3,13,931/- ---------------------------- -6- 13. Amount to be Rs.3,13,931/- enhanced 14. Interest 6% 6% 15) In the light of the above discussion, the claimants would be entitled to get an additional sum of Rs.3,13,931/-, in addition to compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
Decision
16) In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha