Nafr High Court
Case Details
SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Page No.1 2025:CGHC:40405 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1621 of 2019 1. The New India Assurance Company Limited Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office-Beside State Bank Of India Main Branch, Kewdabadi Bus Stand, Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No. 3), versus ... Appellant 1. Mohanmati Patel Wd/o - Late Namdhari Patel Aged About 48 Years 2. Chaitan Kumar Patel S/o - Late Namdhari Patel Aged About 32 Years Respondent No1 & 2 are original R/o Khichari, Tah. Baramkela, Distt. Raigarh (CG) 3. Sunita Patel D/o - Late Namdhari Patel, wife of Suresh Patel, Aged About 30 Years Occupation-House Wife Respondent No.1 to 3 all are R/o Hall Mukam Rajiv Nagar Lane No.1, Near Kotrarroad, Raigarh, Tah. & Dist. Raigarh (CG) 4. Jagnnath Maharan, S/o - Danda Singh Maharana, Aged About 54 Years Occupation-Driver, R/o - Birasnagar Zone No. 5, House No. 312, Police Station Birsanagar, District East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur 5 - M/s Tata Motors Limited (Jamshedpur (Vehicle Owner ), Through - Logistic Officer - Umashankar Singh, S/o - Hawaldar Singh, R/o - Uliyan Main Road Nearsahar Kunj, Post Office Kadma, District East Singhbhum (Jamshedpur) (Non-Applicant (Jharkhand) No.1), …..Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants For Respondent No.1 to 3
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Dasrath Gupta, Advocate : Mr. Manish Kumar Sahu, Advocatye on behalf of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 12/8/2025 Page No.2 1. Appellant Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging quantum of compensation awarded by learned 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur vide award dated 25.4.2019 in Claim Case No.72/2018. 2. Since the death of deceased in a road traffic accident dated 31.3.2018 involvement of offending vehicle Hywa bearing registration No.JH5-TMP-3042, which was driven by non- applicant No.1, owned by non-applicant No.2 and insured by non- applicant No.3, in said accident is not in dispute, therefore, this Court is not adverting to the facts of case and only considering submissions of learned counsel for respective parties on the question of quantum of compensation. 3. Learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company would submit that this appeal is filed solely on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal erred in applying deduction of one-fourth even after recording a finding that claimant No.1-widow of deceased is only dependent on the income of deceased. He also contended that Claimant No.2 is major son of deceased having independent source of income and Claimant No.3 is married daughter residing with her husband, therefore, she also cannot be treated to be dependent upon income of deceased. In the aforementioned facts of the case and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma vs. DTC, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, appropriate deduction would be one-third in place of one-fourth. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 3-claimants opposing the Page No.3 submissions of learned counsel for appellant, would submit that learned Claims Tribunal correctly applied deduction towards personal expenses of deceased and awarded just compensation which does not call for any interference. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record. 6. Perusal of record would show that claim application was filed by three claimants i.e. widow, son and daughter of deceased. Claimant No.1 is widow of deceased. Claimant No.2 is 32 years old son of deceased and in the cause title of claim application, his occupation is mentioned as ‘service’. Claimant No.3 is daughter of deceased aged about 30 years and as per her description given in cause title, she is wife of one Suresh Patel. Under these circumstances, claimants No.2 and 3 could not be considered as dependent on deceased and thus, the Claims Tribunal has correctly recorded finding that Claimant No.1-widow is only dependent upon the deceased. 7. The issue with regard to deduction towards personal and living expenses of deceased has been considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (supra) and it was held that where deceased was married and number of dependent family member is 2 to 4, there shall be deduction of one-third and not one-fourth as done by the Claims Tribunal, which is not permissible. It is ordered accordingly. 8. Learned Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- to claimant No.1, 2 and 3 towards consortium and love & affection Page No.4 respectively, instead of loss of spousal and parental consortium. According to decision in case of Nanhu Ram (supra), each of claimants is entitled to consortium under spousal, filial and parental respectively in case claimants are wife/husband, parents and children at the rate of Rs.40,000/-. In case at hand, appellants-claimants being widow and children of deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of spousal and parental consortium respectively. It is ordered accordingly. 9. After accepting ground raised by learned counsel for appellant, in view of fact that claim application is filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation against death of breadwinner of family of claimants, and considering that the Act of 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation, it is bounden duty of this Court to look into whether the compensation awarded to claimants is just, fair and not a bonanza. Only with a view to consider whether compensation awarded to claimants is just and fair, I propose to compute the compensation which could have been awarded to claimants. 10. Deceased was a government servant working as Block Education Officer on the date of accident, his income was assessed by Claims Tribunal as Rs.40,209/- relying on his pay slips. However, learned Claims Tribunal did not add 15% of established income of deceased towards future prospects, which is mandatory in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) Page No.5 16 SCC 680. Thus, after adding 15% towards loss of future prospects, annual income of deceased would come to Rs.5,54,880/-. After deducting one-third towards personal expenses of deceased, as held above, total income of deceased would come to Rs.3,69,920/-. By applying multiplier of 9, as applied by Claims Tribunal, loss of dependency would come to Rs.33,29,280/-. Besides this, claimant No.1 being widow of deceased will be entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium and appellant no.2 and 3 being children of deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000-/ each towards parental consortium. Appellants will also be entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. Thus, total compensation for which claimants would have been entitled comes to Rs.34,79,280/-. Whereas, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.32,35,723/-. 11. Appellant Insurance Company has specifically pleaded in appeal that excess compensation of Rs.3,61,881/- has been awarded to claimants. 12. From the aforementioned computation of compensation and compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal, it is clear that the Claims Tribunal fell into error in not awarding just compensation to claimants and the compensation so awarded is less than what the claimants are entitled to get as per law. However, since it is not brought to the notice of this Court that any cross-appeal/cross objection is filed by claimants for enhancement of compensation, Page No.6 therefore, amount of compensation cannot be enhanced in the appeal filed by Insurance Company. 13. For the foregoing reason and discussion, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the compensation so awarded by learned Claims Tribunal and as such, appeal filed by appellant insurance company is dismissed. roshan/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge