Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2025:CGHC:29650 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1497 of 2018 1 - Anjani Bai W/o Wd/o Arjun Singh Aged About 40 Years By Caste Gond, Occupation House Wife, R/o Village Rampur, Police Station Jainagar, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. Present Address Tiwari Building Road, Kedarpur, Ambikapur, Police Station And Tah Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ...........Claimants., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Rupnarayan S/o S/o Late Arjun Singh Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Of Mother Anjani Bai Wd/o Late Arjun Singh. Occuaption Students. R/o Village Rampur, Police Station Jainagar, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. Present Address Tiwari Building Road, Kedarpur, Ambikapur, Police Station And Tah Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Hemtala D/o D/o Late Arjun Singh Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Of Mother Anjani Bai Wd/o Late Arjun Singh. Occupation Student, R/o Village Rampur, Police Station Jainagar, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. Present Address Tiwari Building Road, Kedarpur, Ambikapur, Police Station And Tah Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Premnarayan D/o S/o Late Arjun Singh Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Of Mother Anjani Bai Wd/o Late Arjun Singh, R/o Village Rampur, Police Station Jainagar, District Sarguja, 2 Chhattisgarh. Present Address Tiwari Building Road, Kedarpur, Ambikapur, Police Station And Tah Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Rajaram S/o S/o Late Kawal Sai R/o I. T. I. Colony, Quarter No. 115, Vishrampur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ................Owner Of Offending Vehicle Hero Honda Glamour Bearing Registration No. C. G. 15- E- 6033, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhabilal D/o S/o Ramsunder Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Nainpur, Police Station Jainagar, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ..............Driver Of Offending Vehicle Hero Honda Glamour Bearing Registration No. C. G. 15-E-6033, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Through Branch Manager, Near Ambedkar Chowk, Manendragarh Road, Ambikapur, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ............Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Hero Honda Glamour Bearing Registration No. C. G. 15-E- 6033, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Nahal Singh D/o S/o Jaisingh Aged About 75 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Kuridih, Police Station And Tahsil Bhaithan, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sam Kunwar Bai W/o W/o Nahal Singh Aged About 70 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Kuridih, Police Station And Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate on behalf of 3 For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocate and Mr. Harshwardhan Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board (01.07.2025) 1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 09.11.2016 passed by the 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur District Sarguja (C.G.) in Claim Case No.545/2012 whereby a compensation of Rs.4,01,000/- with interest @ 06% per annum, in favour of the appellants/claimants for their irreparable loss. 2. The facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that the appellants filed a claim petition before the Learned 3 rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (Chhattisgarh), seeking compensation on account of the death of Arjun Singh in a road accident that occurred on 20.03.2009 at around 12:00 PM. On the said date, the deceased Arjun Singh had travelled from village Rampur to Surajpur to appear before a Court. While returning, he stopped at the house of one Chhabilal in village Nainpur, where he had his meal around 7:00 PM. Thereafter, he proceeded towards Rampur on a motorcycle bearing registration number CG 15 E 6033, which belonged to Baliram, the brother of Rajaram, and was being driven at the time by Chhabilal. When the vehicle reached near Keshavnagar Brick Factory, the motorcycle was allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner by 4 Chhabilal, due to which the motorcycle skidded and fell, resulting in serious injuries to Arjun Singh, particularly on his head, left shoulder, and leg. For better medical care, Arjun Singh was initially taken to Vishrampur Hospital, later referred to District Hospital, Ambikapur, and subsequently referred to Raipur for advanced treatment. Unfortunately, on 22.03.2009, while en route to Raipur, he succumbed to his injuries near Ratanpur. 3. The accident was reported at Police Station Surajpur, and upon investigation, an offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered. A charge sheet was filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surajpur, against Respondents No. 1 and 2 (the driver and the owner of the vehicle). At the time of the incident, the deceased Arjun Singh was 45 years of age, in good health, and engaged in agricultural activities, earning approximately 6,000 per ₹ month. The claimants, Anjani Bai (wife), son, and daughter of the deceased, submitted that they suffered mental agony and were facing severe financial hardship after his untimely demise. Respondents No. 1 and 2 remained ex-parte during the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. Respondent No. 3, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., the insurer of the offending motorcycle, filed a written statement, denying all material allegations and contesting the claim, inter alia, on the ground of policy violation and lack of negligence on the part of the insured vehicle's driver. After framing of issues and appreciation of evidence, the Learned Claims Tribunal passed the award dated 09.11.2016, awarding compensation of 4,01,000 in favour of the appellants. ₹ 5 Aggrieved by the insufficiency of the awarded amount, the appellants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. When the claim application for compensation was filed by the present appellants/claimants of deceased before the Claims Tribunal against the driver, owner and insurance company of the alleged vehicle, the Tribunal has taken income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per month. The deceased was aged about 45 years and the claimants are the wife and children, respondents No.4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased and the deduction was 1/3rd towards personal expenses i.e. Rs.1,000/- total income would be Rs.24,000/-. After applying multiplier of 14, the total loss of dependency calculated to Rs. 3,36,000/-. And on other heads Rs.65,000/- has been calculated and awarded total compensation of Rs.4,01,000/- (Rs.3,36,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.5,000/- = Rs.4,01,000/-) with interest @ 6% per annum, in favour of the appellants/claimants. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. The learned Claims Tribunal has committed a grave legal error in disbelieving the testimony of the claimants’ witnesses, who were duly examined in support of their pleadings. The rejection of their statements amounts to a failure in appreciating the evidence on record. The learned Claims Tribunal erred in holding that 6 the Tribunal has failed to consider the future prospect of the deceased. In the present case, a future prospect of 25% was rightly considered, in light of the precedents set by this Hon’ble Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others 1 . It ought to have considered that the deceased left behind wife, children and parents making a total of six dependents. The findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal are perverse and contrary to law, and therefore liable to be set aside. The Tribunal’s conclusions run contrary to the documentary evidence and oral testimony on record, reflecting a failure to properly consider the facts in their correct perspective. The learned Claims Tribunal also erred in awarding interest at the rate of 9% per annum, warranting suitable enhancement of the interest awarded. In light of the above, the appellants respectfully pray that the impugned award be set aside and the claim be enhanced as per the submissions made herein. 6. Learned counsel for the owner respectfully submits that the Tribunal has committed a manifest error in fastened liability upon the owner. It is submitted that the owner was in possession of a valid and subsisting insurance policy at the relevant time, which fully covered the risk in question. Furthermore, there has been no breach of any terms or conditions of the said insurance policy on the part of the owner. In light of these facts, it is incumbent upon the Court to hold that the liability for the claim ought to be fastened solely upon the insurance company and not upon the owner. To fasten liability upon the owner despite the 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 7 existence of a valid insurance cover and absence of any breach would be contrary to settled legal principles and would result in undue hardship to the owner. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Insurance Company contends that, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and calls for no interference by this Hon’ble Court. It is further submitted that the Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened liability upon both the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle in accordance with the established principles of law and in consonance with the evidence on record. 8. I Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record with utmost circumspection. 9. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 10. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.32,34,593/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 11. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.3000/- per month, but no documentary evidence in support thereof has been produced, but it 8 cannot be said that the deceased was not earning anything from his work. Therefore, in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of the deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, wage structure prevailing on the date of accident, price index and cost of living etc. Therefore, upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate that the trial Court has rightly assessed the income of the deceased, at the relevant time of accident i.e. 20.03.2009. The annual income of the deceased is Rs.36,000/- per annum. As per Pranay Sethi (supra). 12. The deceased was aged about 45 years and was married and the claimants are the parents and children of the deceased so in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another , 2 and Pranay Sethi (supra), after adding 25% towards future prospects i.e. Rs.36,000/- + Rs.9,000/- (Rs.36,000/- x 25/100 = Rs.9,000/-), deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3rd which comes to Rs.15,000/- (Rs.45,000/- x 1/3 = Rs.15,000/-), the annual income comes to Rs.30,000/-. Further, considering the age of the deceased multiplier of 14 would be applicable, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.4,20,000/-. The claimants are further entitled for loss of estate Rs. 18,000/- (10% increase in every three years), for funeral expenses Rs. 18,000/- (10% increase in every three years) and as per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, 3 the claimants are further 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 AIR Online 2018 SC 189 9 entitled for loss of consortium Rs. 48,000/- (with 10% increase in every three years) each i.e. Rs.1,92,000/-. Therefore, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs.6,48,000/-. In light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors 4 , this Court reassesses the compensation in the following manner:- Sn. Heads Calculation 01 Income of the Deceased Rs.36,000/- (Rs.3,000/- x 12) 02 Future Prospect 25% Rs.9,000/- (Rs.36,000/- x 25%) 03 Deduction 1/3rd 04 Total Income of the Deceased 05 Multiplier of 14 06 Towards loss of estate 07 Funeral Expenses 08 Towards loss of consortium to all the six claimants @ Rs.48,000/- x 6 Rs.15,000/- (Rs.45,000/- x 1/3) Rs.30,000/- (Rs.45,000/- – Rs.15,000/-) Rs.4,20,000/- (Rs.30,000 x 14) Rs. 18,000/- Rs. 18,000/- Rs. 1,92,000/- Total Rs.6,48,000/- 13. Accordingly, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs.6,48,000/- from Rs.4,01,000/-. Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs.2,47,000/-, which shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal (6% p.a.) from the date of claim petition till realization. 14. As a result, the appeal is allowed in part. The award dated 09.11.2016 is modified to the extent indicated above. The enhanced amount shall be paid by the Owner and Driver i.e. Respondents No.1 & 4 (2011) 1 SCC 343 10 2 respectively. Rest of the terms and conditions of the Tribunal’s award remain intact. 15. The Registry is directed to intimate the claimants in writing regarding the enhanced amount. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh/Saxena