Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:16897 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1136 of 2020 1 - Smt. Rajshree Jain (Duggad) W/o Late Jitendra Kumar Jain (Duggad) Aged About 45 Years 2 - Kumari Bhawna Jain (Duggad) D/o Late Jitendra Kumar Jain (Duggad) Aged About 22 Years 3 - Kumari Twinkle Jain (Duggad) D/o Late Jitendra Kumar Jain (Duggad) Aged About 20 Years 4 - Kushal Kumar Jain (Duggad) S/o Late Jitendra Kumar Jain (Duggad) Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Rajshree Jain (Duggad). All are R/o Main Road Jagdalpur, District Bastar (Chhattisgarh) 1 - Hemant Sanduja S/o Koushal Sanduja Aged About 21 Years R/o Naya Munda Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh versus --- Appellants 2 - Ramesh Parakh S/o Mohan Lal Parakh Aged About 42 Years R/o Balaji Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 4 - Lachhim Kashyap S/o Manu Kashyap Aged About 21 Years R/o Bagbahara Para Bastar, Chowki And Tahsil Bastar, District Bastar 5 - Parasnath Yadav S/o Tilakdharai Yadav Aged About 37 Years R/o Shanti Nagar Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Jagdalpur, District Bastar (Chhattisgarh). --- Respondent(s) For Appellants For respondents No.1 to 5 : None present For Respondent No.6
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate : Ms. Swati Agrawal on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu 2 Order On Board 11/04/2025 1. Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 29.02.2020 passed in Claim Case No.92/2012 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.8,81,250/- as compensation in a death case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 01.05.2011, Jitendra Duggad (since deceased) along with his friend Mahendra Kumar Jain was returning from Damanjodi, Orissa to Jagdalpur and when they reached ahead of Koraput, respondent No.1, drove the car in rash and negligent manner, dashed against the truck which was coming from opposite direction. Due to the said accident, Jitendra Kumar Duggad suffered severe injuries and he died on the way while he was being taken to the hospital. 3. Appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.23,80,000/- pleading therein that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 48 years, doing the business of electronics items and property dealing and earning Rs.13,333/- per month. Claimants had also sought compensation under all other heads as are available to them like loss of future income, for love and affection and loss of consortium etc. 4. Non-applicant Nos. 2 submitted reply and resisted the claim. It was pleaded that the accident was not occurred due to rash and negligent 3 driving of respondent No.1. Claim petition is filed exaggerating the amount of compensation. It was also pleaded that on the date of incident respondent No.1 was having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. The vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.3 and there was no breach of policy condition. It was pleaded that in case, appellant is entitled for compensation, then respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation. 5. Non-applicant No.3-Insurer of the Santro Car bearing No.C.G.-17-C- 0811, submitted reply to claim application denying the pleadings made therein. It was pleaded that claim petition was filed exaggerating the amount of compensation. Respondent No.4 by driving the Truck bearing registration No.C.G.-17-H-9181 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the car due to which deceased suffered injuries and as a result of which he died. He was not having any valid and effective driving license, there was breach of condition of insurance policy, hence, respondent No.3/ insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 6. Non-applicant No.4 and 5, who were driver and owner of the offending truck while refuting the claim application pleaded that the respondent No.4/driver of truck was not at fault in the said accident, but the car driver while driving the car in a rash and negligent manner collided with the truck coming from opposite direction. It was pleaded that the offending truck was duly insured with respondent No.6 and respondent No.4 was having valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle. In case, appellants are entitled for compensation, then respondent No.6 is liable to pay the compensation. 7. Respondent No.6/insurer of offending truck has pleaded in its reply 4 that respondent No.4 was driving the offending truck carefully and in moderate speed. It was the respondent No.1, driver of Santro car who was driving the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner and caused accident. It was pleaded that the accident occurred as a result of a collision between the two vehicles; therefore, it would be appropriate to assess compensation by determining the extent of contributory negligence on the part of driver of both the vehicles. It was also pleaded that there was breach of condition of insurance policy, hence, respondent No.6/ insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 8. Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, learned Claims Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Santro Car by non-applicant No.1, due to which the deceased suffered injuries. Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.8,81,250/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation. 9. Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation. It is submitted that learned Claims Tribunal erred in disbelieving the income and occupation of the deceased and has erroneously assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month only. It is contended that learned Claims Tribunal has also failed to award proper and suitable compensation towards loss of parental consortium to the appellants No.2 to 4 as per the decision of Hon’ble Suprme Court in case of 5 Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. He prays that amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.6-Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants. She would submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation on each and every head. It is submitted that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is on proper appreciation of facts and evidence brought on record by the respective parties, which does not call for any interference. 11. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 12. So far as the submission of learned counsel for appellants with respect to the income of the deceased is concerned, the appellants have failed to prove the income and occupation of the deceased by producing admissible piece of evidence. The learned Claims Tribunal after considering the minimum wages prevailing in the year 2011 has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month, which cannot be said to be on lower side, hence, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal with regard to the assessment of the income of the deceased. The learned Claims Tribunal after adding 25% in the income of the deceased towards future loss of income, deducting 1/4 towards personal expenses, and after applying multiplier of 13, has rightly assessed the total loss of income/dependency of the deceased to be of Rs.7,31,250/-. 13. So far as the second ground raised by learned counsel for appellants 6 that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded just and proper compensation towards parental consortium to the appellants No.2 to 4 is concerned, perusal of the award would show that learned Claims Tribunal has only awarded Rs.20,000/- - Rs.20,000/- to the appellants No.2 to 4 each towards parental consortium, which is required to be enhanced to Rs.40,000/- each as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (Supra) and It is ordered accordingly. The learned Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.15,000/- - Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and for loss of estate which is does not call for any interference. 14. On the basis of above, the compensation calculated by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- S.N. Head Amount. 1. 2. 3. 3. Loss of income/dependency : Rs.7,31,250.00 For loss of estate : Rs. 15,000.00 For funeral expenses : Rs. 15,000.00 For loss of spousal consortium to appellant No.1 and parental consortium to appellants No.2 to4 (Rs.40,000/- each) : Rs.1,60,000.00 Total Compensation : Rs.9,21,250.00 15.
Decision
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.9,21,250.00. Any amount paid to the appellants as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. 7 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram