Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 / 6 2025:CGHC:32853 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1590 of 2019 1. Smt. Anita W/o - Late Narendra Verma Aged About 30 Year 2. Dharmendra Verma S/o - Late Narendra Verma Aged About 10 Years Minor Represented By Their Mother Smt Anita W/o Late Narendra Verma 3. Dhannanjay Verma S/o - Late Narendra Verma Aged About 7 Years Minor Represented By Their Mother Smt Anita W/o Late Narendra Verma 4. Jetu Verma S/o - Late Pardesi Verma Aged About 55 Years 5. Smt Amrit Bai Verma W/o - Jetu Verma Aged About 50 Years All are R/o - Village Tilairvar Vikas Khand Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh --- Appellants/ Applicants-Claimants versus 1. Raghunath S/o - Guhri Verma Aged About 67 Years R/o - Village Bicchitola, Thana And Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Driver) 2. Giriraj Dammani S/o - Girdhar Dammani, R/o - Gandhi Ward No. 16, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Owner) 3. Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, Branch Office New Bus Stand, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mrs. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate ---Respondents/ Non-applicants PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA
Legal Reasoning
For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 15/07/2025 1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount 2 / 6 of compensation, challenging the award dated 29.06.2019 passed by Learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dongargarh to learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 06/2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 8,76,400/- as compensation in motor accidental death case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 20.02.2019 Narendra Verma along with Lekhram was going from Dongargarh to Kalyanpur on a motorcycle bearing number CG08S9855, at about 04:30 pm when they reached Dammani Rice Mill, non-applicant No. 1 while driving truck bearing number CG07CA1406 (henceforth “offending truck”) rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle driven by Lekhram and caused accident, due to which Narendra Verma who was riding pillion suffered fatal injuries and died on spot. Accident was reported to police station Dongargarh based on which Crime No. 91/19 was registered against non-applicant No. 1. Applicants-claimants widow, children and parents of deceased- Narendra Verma, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 20,00,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was a healthy person aged about 34 years. He was doing the work of Mason and earning ₹ 10,000 per month. Respondents No. 1 & 2/ Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 -driver and owner of the offending truck filed their reply to the application, denying the facts pleaded therein. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident non-applicant No. 1 was driving the truck carefully, the accident occurred due to negligence of driver of motorcycle who was driving the motorcycle in intoxicated condition. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident, offending truck was insured by non-applicant No. 3, thus, if there is any liability, it would be of non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company. 3. 4. 3 / 6 5. Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company filed reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that on the date of accident the offending truck was plying in breach of policy conditions, driver of offending truck was not possessed with valid and effective driving licence, thus, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation, if any. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased -Narendra Verma died because of grievous injuries suffered by him in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending truck driven by non-applicant No. 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved. Tribunal calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 8,76,400/- as total compensation with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization and fastened liability to satisfy the award upon non-applicants therein, jointly and severally. 7. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as only ₹ 4500 per month, overlooking the date of accident ie., 20.02.2019, occupation and income of the deceased as pleaded in the claim application. He next contended that the claimants are five including widow, children and parents, however, the Claims Tribunal has applied the deduction towards personal and living expenses of 1/3 instead of 1/4. She lastly contended that the amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium is also very less. Tribunal has awarded loss of consortium to claimant No. 1 only ie., widow of the deceased and not the children and parents. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants-claimants and would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case is just and proper and it does not call for any interference. In 4 / 6 absence of prove of income, Claims Tribunal justified in assessing the income on notional basis. He however submits that the Claims Tribunal though recorded the age of deceased as 38 years, however, erred in applying multiplier of 16 instead of 15 as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. 9. Learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 2- driver and owner of offending truck also submits that the amount of compensation awarded is just and proper and it does not call for any interference. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 11. Sofar as the submission made by learned counsel for appellants-claimants with regard to assessment of income of deceased as ₹ 4,500 per month on the date of accident is concerned, the occupation of deceased is pleaded to be working as Mason, however, there is no clinching and admissible piece of evidence available in record to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased as pleaded in the claim application. In the aforementioned facts of the case, Claims Tribunal justified in taking recourse to assess income of deceased on notional basis, however, fell into error in not taking into consideration factors like age of deceased, date of accident, cost of living, price index and wages prevailing on the date of accident ie.,of the year 2019, in the area of which deceased was resident and has not considered minimum wages fixed by the competent authority for the unskilled, semi skilled and skilled labourer. As the appellant-claimant failed to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased, I find it appropriate to hold that the occupation of deceased to be one of the unskilled labourer. 12. As there is no material to suggest the wages prevailing at the place where the deceased was resident of, therefore, I find it appropriate to take help of minimum wages fixed by the competent authority and prevailing within the 5 / 6 State of Chhattisgarh. Deceased was resident of Dongarhgarh, district Rajnandgaon and as per the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, minimum wages fixed for the period from 01.10.2018 till 31.03.2019 for unskilled labourer for C-Zone area is ₹ 8,100/- per month. Therefore, the monthly income of deceased on the date of accident is assessed as ₹ 8,100. It is ordered accordingly. 13. Further perusal of award would show that the Claims Tribunal has correctly added 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects and further awarded ₹ 15,000 towards loss of estate, ₹ 15,000 towards funeral expenses and ₹ 40,000 has been awarded towards loss of consortium to appellant No. 1, which are to the tune of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Claims Tribunal fell into error in applying the multiplier of 16 and deduction of 1/3. As the deceased was held to be below 40 years of age, and five dependents, therefore according to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), appropriate multiplier will be 15 and there shall be deduction of 1/4. It is ordered accordingly. 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, has held that apart from awarding loss of spousal consortium to widow/ husband, children and parents of the deceased will also be entitled for loss of consortium under the head of loss of parental consortium and loss of filial consortium respectively. In the case at hand, appellants No. 2 & 3 are children and appellants No. 4 & 5 are parents, therefore, they will also be entitled for loss of parental consortium and loss of filial consortium of ₹ 40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. 14. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires re-computation, which is as under. Compensation ₹ 15,30,900/- 6 / 6 Particulars • Annual Loss of income/ dependency = ₹ 97,200/- (₹ 8100x12) • Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 40% (₹ 97,200 + 40% of ₹ 97,200 = ₹ 1,36,080) • Deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses (₹ 1,36,080 x 1/4= ₹ 34,020); ₹ 1,36,080 - ₹ 34,020 = ₹ 1,02,060/- • Multiplier of 15 ₹ 1,02,060 x 15 = ₹ 15,30,900/- Loss of Spousal Consortium to Appellant No. 1 Loss of parental consortium to Appellants No. 2 ₹ 40,000/- ₹ 1,60,000/- & 3; and Loss of Filial Consortium to Appellants No. 4 & 5 (₹ 40,000 each) Loss of estate Funeral Expenses Total ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 17,60,900/- 15. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 17,60,900/- instead of ₹ 8,76,400/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. • Any amount paid to the appellants-claimants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Rest of the conditions as imposed by the Claims Tribunal in the impugned award shall remain intact. 16.
Decision
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