High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.02.21 16:52:57 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR 1. Sangeeta Pathak W/o Late Aashish Pathak, Aged About 21 Years, MAC No. 352 of 2016 2. Yuvraj Pathak S/o Late Aashish Pathak, Aged About 11 Year And 6 Month, 3. Ramanuj Pathak S/o Late Bedanti Pathak, Aged About 60 Years, 4. Meena Pathak W/o Ramanuj Pathak, Aged About 55 Years, 5. Muskaan Pathak D/o Late Aashish Pathak, Aged About 07 Months, Appellant No.2 & 5 are minor through represented by Natural Guardian Mother (Appellant No.1) All are R/o Village - Tharpathar, Post and P.S. Biharpur (Chandni), District - Sarguja, Present District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ............Claimants, Versus ... Appellants 1. Ajay Kumar Mishr, S/o Dayaram Mishr, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village - Pargupur, P.S.- Jansa, Distt.- Varanasi, (U.P.) (Driver of Bus Registration Bearing No. U.P./65/ R/9960, 2. Shyam Kartik Dubey, S/o Late Dudhnath, Aged About 55 Years, Village- Tharpathar, P.S.- Chandni Biharpur, District- Sarguja, Present District – Surajpur, (Owner of Bolero Car Registration Bearing No. C.G./15/ B/1332), 2 3. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Regional Office - Kent Varanasi, Distt.- Varanasi, (U.P.), (Owner of Bus Registration Bearing No. U.P./65/R/9960), 4. National Insurance Company Limited, Through- Branch Manager, Branch Office- Singrauli Complex, Post- Baidhan, Distt.- Singrauli, M.P. (Insurer of Vehicle Bolero Car Registration Bearing No. C.G./15/ B/1332, ... Respondents For Appellants/
Legal Reasoning
concerned, there is no dispute on it. Further, taking the guidance from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, Pranay Sethi (supra) & Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), this Court computes the compensation in the following manner:- 5 Heads Sl. No. Calculation (in rupees) 01. Income of the deceased @ Rs.41,832/- per annum Rs.3,486/- per month 02. 40% of (1) above to be added Rs.16,732/- towards future prospects. Rs.41,832 + Rs.16,732 = Rs.58,564/- 03. ¼ deduction towards personal and Rs.14,641/- living expenses of the deceased Rs.58,564 – Rs.14,641 = Rs.43,923/- 04. Multiplier of 17 to be applied Rs.43,923 x 17 = Rs.7,46,691/- 05. Towards Conventional Heads Rs.2,30,000/- (loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium) Total Compensation Rs.9,76,691/- 7. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.5,16,000/-, after deducting the same from Rs.9,76,691/-, the appellants/claimants are entitled for additional compensation of Rs.4,60,691/-, which shall carry interest as awarded by the Tribunal. However, the ratio of disbursement and the terms and conditions made by the Tribunal in the impugned award shall remain intact.
Arguments
: Ms. Harshika Pandey, Advocate on Claimants behalf of Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For Respondents : None Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 21/02/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the the claimants/appellants for enhancement of compensation against the award dated 20.11.2015 passed by 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District – Surajpur, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Motor Accidents Claim Case No.157/2011, awarding total compensation of Rs.5,16,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization while fastening liability upon non- applicant No.1 and 3 jointly and severally. 2. As per averments made in the claim petition, on 05.06.2010 the deceased, namely, Ashish Pathak was driving the vehicle (Bolero) of non-applicant No.2/respondent No.2 bearing registration No.CG/15/B/1332 towards Anpara in slow speed, at that time, near village Mishra at the main road, non-applicant No.1/driver of the bus bearing registration No.UP/65/R/9960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) who was driving the said vehicle in a rash and 3 negligent manner, dashed the vehicle of the deceased, due to which the deceased suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.3 – Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport but not insured with the insurance company. As per the claim petition, at the time of accident, deceased Ashish Pathak was aged about 24 years and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month by being a contractor and also through agriculture. 3. On claim petition being filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.18,00,000/-, the Tribunal, considering the evidence led by both the parties, passed an award as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Being aggrieved with the impugned award, the claimants have filed the appeal for enhancement. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, however, the deceased was a contractor and looking to the nature of his work, his monthly income was Rs.15,000/-, therefore, the monthly income of the deceased needs to be reassessed suitably. She further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects and that amount awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads is also on lower side, which needs to be enhanced suitably. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 & Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. 4 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 6. As regards the income of the deceased Ashish Pathak, though the claimants in the claim petition have pleaded that at the time of accident, the deceased used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month by being a contractor and also through agriculture but, in this regard, no documentary evidence has been produced by them. However, the Tribunal on notional basis assessed the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.3,000/-, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not correct. Therefore, considering the Minimum Wages Provisions and the nature of work of the deceased, I propose to recompute the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,486/- i.e. Rs.41,832/- per annum. Moreover, the Tribunal has erred in not granting any amount towards future prospects of the deceased, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not just and proper. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) has considered 40% towards loss of future prospects for the self-employed persons who are below 40 years of age. Therefore, looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 26 years, as considered by the Tribunal, the applicable percentage towards his future prospects would be 40%. So far as multiplier of 17 is
Decision
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with the modification in the impugned award to the above extent. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Prakash