Nafr High Court
Case Details
Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO Date: 2025.04.08 10:57:40 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:15695 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 628 of 2021 1 - Reeta Devi W/o Late Kamlesh Yadav, Aged About 33 Years R/o Surandha Paibeedha, Police Station Bela, District Gaya (Bihar), District : Bihar Gaya, 2 - Pankaj Kumar S/o Kamlesh Yadav Aged About 10 Years Minor, Represented Through Legal Guardian And Mother Smt. Reeta Devi, R/o Surandha Paibeedha, Police Station Bela, District Gaya (Bihar), District : Gaya, Bihar 3 - Annu Kumari D/o Kamlesh Yadav, Aged About 6 Years Minor, Represented Through Legal Guardian And Mother Smt. Reeta Devi, R/o Surandha Paibeedha, Police Station Bela, District Gaya (Bihar), Bihar 4 - Anshu Kumari D/o Kamlesh Yadav, Aged About 4 Years Minor, Represented Through Legal Guardian And Mother Smt. Reeta Devi, R/o Surandha Paibeedha, Police Station Bela, District Gaya (Bihar), District : Gaya, Bihar ... Appellants/ Claimants versus 1 - Sukhan Ram Painkra S/o Madan Ram Painkra, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Champa, Tehsil Bagicha, Police Station Sanna, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh......(Driver Of Truck No. C.G.-14-G-0786), District : Chhattisgarh Jashpur, 2 - Riyaj Chisti S/o Najir Chisti, Aged About 33 Years R/o Jhapidaraha, Tehsil Bagicha, Police Station Sanna, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.......... (Owner Of Truck No. C.G.-14-G-0786), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chola Mandalam M.S. General Insurance Through Branch Manager, Branch Office- Behind Axis Bank, Dhimrapur Road, Tehsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents : Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate. For Appellants For the Insurance Company : Mr. Anshuman Rabra, Advocate along with Mr. Keshav Singh Rathore, Legal Officer, Chola Mandalam M.S. General Insurance Company. -2-
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 03.04.2025 1. The appellants/claimants have challenged the award passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, in Claim Case No.68 of 2018 dated 17.5.2019, whereby an award of Rs.6,67,250/- has been passed with interest @ 9% per annum. 2. The facts of the case are as under:- The deceased – Kamlesh Yadav was driving his own Truck bearing registration No. C.G.04.J.0122. On 22.8.2015 while the deceased was heading towards Assam near Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, the offending vehicle, a bus bearing registration No.C.G.-14- G.0786, dashed the Truck of the deceased. It is an admitted fact that there was a head-on collision and the deceased sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to the hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries on the same day during the course of treatment. The claimants, who are the wife and children of the deceased, filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.1,46,50,000/-. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was 40 years old at the time of the accident and was earning Rs.50,000/- per month as a driver. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed their reply denying the allegations. They pleaded that the Truck was being driven rashly and negligently by the deceased himself. The offending vehicle was insured by the Insurance Company on the date of the accident. The Insurance 3 Company filed a reply and took a plea that the age of the deceased was more than 40 years on the date of the accident. The deceased was not earning Rs.50,000/- per month and the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving license and permit to drive the bus. The parties led evidence, and the learned Tribunal held that there was contributory negligence on the part of the vehicle – Truck, which was being driven by the deceased. It is also held that the deceased sustained grievous injuries in that accident and succumbed. Learned Tribunal further held that there was no breach of the Insurance Policy and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.6,67,250/- along with interest @ 9%. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there is no evidence with regard to contributory negligence but the learned Tribunal found 50% negligence on the part of the Truck driven by the deceased. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal did not award compensation for future prospects despite the fact that the deceased was 40 years old at the time of the accident whereas the learned Tribunal ought to have added 40% of the notional income as future prospects. He would further contend that the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation on the head of loss of parental consortium and an additional 10% has not been added, even though there was a delay of more than three years in the conclusion of the claim case. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the -4- appellants. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. He would contend that there was a head-on collision between the Truck and the Bus, and the issue of contributory negligence was found proved. He would also submit that the learned Tribunal awarded 10% of notional income for future prospects. He would further contend that the petitioner was not receiving a fixed salary; therefore, the claimants are not entitled to an additional sum under that head. With regard to 10% additional sum on other heads, he would contend that the claimants are not entitled to any addition on the compensation amount. 5. A perusal of the record and evidence led by the parties would show that there was a head on collision between the Truck, which was being driven by the deceased, and the offending Bus. A copy of the charge-sheet, FIR, and the evidence of the parties categorically proves this fact. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that there was a head-on collision and found proved 50% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Truck i.e. the deceased. 6. Admittedly, the learned Tribunal considered the age of the deceased to be 40 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.9,500/-, which appears to be reasonable. Since the deceased was 40 years old, the learned Tribunal ought to have added an additional 40% for future prospects according to law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and 5 Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and on this count, the award requires reconsideration. 7. The next contention made by counsel for the appellant with regard to the award of compensation for the loss of parental consortium appears to be valid. It seems that the learned Tribunal failed to award compensation to claimants No.2 to 4, the children of the deceased for the loss of consortium to Rs.40,000/- each. 8. Regarding the additional 10% sum on other heads, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), the accident took place in the year 2015, and the judgment was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2017. Although the award was passed in 2019, the matter remained pending before the Tribunal and before this Court for more than six years. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to get an additional sum of 20% on these heads. This Court hereby computes the compensation in the following manner:- 1. 2. 3. 4. Monthly income Rs.9,500/- Yearly income (9,500 x12) Rs.1,14,000/- Future prospects 40% (114000 + 45,600/-) Rs.1,59,600/- 1/4th deduction for personal Rs.1,19,700/- expenses (1,59,600-39,900/-) 5. Multiplier of 15 (1,19,700 X 15) Rs.17,95,500/ (Loss of -6- 6. 7. 8. 9. Contributory Negligence (17,95,500 X 1/2) Funeral expenses + loss of Estate+ spousal consortium Loss of consortium to children (Rs.40,000/- each to appellants No.2 to 4) Additional sum of 20% under these heads (Filial and Parental Consortium) (Rs.1,90,000 + 38,000/-) dependency) Rs.8,97,750/- +Rs.70,000/- +Rs.1,20,000/- 2,28,000/- TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.11,25,750/-
Decision
9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs.6,67,250/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 11,25,750/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 6,67,250/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled to an additional amount of Rs.4,58,500/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application before the Tribunal, till its realization. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. The Tribunal shall pass appropriate order with regard to apportionment, 7 investment and disbursement of the enhanced amount of compensation. 11.Further, the presence of the Officer of Insurance Company is hereby dispensed with. Nimmi Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge