Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Santosh Kumar Bhuarya (Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Date v. 1
Case Details
1 ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2025:CGHC:44716 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1514 of 2018 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Medical And Health Officer District Hospital, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh...(Non App. No. 2), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Santosh Kumar Bhuarya (Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Date- 24-10-2018. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Baisakhin Bai W/o Late Karanlal Narange Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Fulsundari, P.S. Pinkapar, P.S. Devari, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kuleshwar Prasad S/o Late Karanlal Narange Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Fulsundari, P.S. Pinkapar, P.S. Devari, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Dwarika Prasad S/o Late Kranal Narange Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Fulsundari, P.S. Pinkapar, P.S. Devari, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Mordhwaj S/o Late Karanlal Narange Aged About 16 Years Minor
Legal Reasoning
And Represented By His Mother Smt. Baisakhin Bai, Caste Of Satnami, 2 R/o Village Fulsundari, P.S. Pinkapar, P.S. Devari, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 5 - Tejeshwar S/o Late Karanlal Narange Aged About 7 Years Minor And Represented By His Mother Smt. Baisakhin Bai, Caste Of Satnami, R/o Village Fulsundari, P.S. Pinkapar, P.S. Devari, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 6 - Santosh Kumar Bhuarya S/o Binjhwar Bhuarya Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Umarwahi, P.S. Dongargaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board (02/09/2025) 1. This is an appeal by the State against the award dated 29.01.2018 passed by the 2nd Upper Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Rajnandgaon C.G. in Claim Case No.126 of 2016, whereby the Claims Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.7,28,125/- with interest @ 6% in favour of the claimants. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/claimant filed an application under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of the death of her husband, Karanlal Narange (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 08.03.2016 at approximately 5:00 PM, on the road 3 between Karmari and Matiyabandh near Umarwahi, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Devri, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh). At the time of the incident, the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 08 NG 2341, when it was allegedly hit by a Government vehicle, Maruti Van (Ambulance), bearing registration No. CG 02/4218, which was being driven by respondent No.6 (Appellant No.2 herein), a government employee of the Health Department, while on official duty. As a result of the collision, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to those injuries during treatment at the District Hospital, Rajnandgaon. Following the accident, an FIR bearing Crime No. 65/2016 was registered under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against respondent No.6. It is submitted that the Government vehicle was being driven with due caution and within the prescribed speed limit, and the driver (Appellant No.2) possessed a valid driving license issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Rajnandgaon. Conversely, it is the case of the appellants that the deceased himself was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, which directly led to the accident. Notwithstanding the above, the respondents No.1 to 5 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of ₹13,78,800/- before the learned 2nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (CG), which was registered as Claim Case No.126/2016. The appellants respectfully submit that they are not 4 liable to pay compensation as the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased, and further, the claimants failed to adduce sufficient evidence regarding the income and employment of the deceased. However, disregarding these material facts, the learned Claims Tribunal proceeded to award compensation of ₹7,28,125/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, fastening the liability jointly and severally upon the appellants. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-State respectfully submits that the order passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is manifestly bad in law and on the facts and deserves to be set aside. The Tribunal erred in appreciating the evidence of the eyewitness, whose credibility is doubtful, and relied on testimony of a witness who did not report the incident to police but only disclosed his account during the trial. The offending Government vehicle (Maruti Van Ambulance bearing registration No. CG 02/4218) was in proper working condition with a valid fitness certificate, and was driven cautiously by the appellant, who held a valid driving license. The Tribunal failed to consider the material fact that the deceased’s sons, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, are major and gainfully employed, thus not entitled to dependency claims. The compensation was arbitrarily calculated based on an unsubstantiated daily income of Rs. 200/- for the deceased, without any cogent or documentary evidence to support this claim, rendering the multiplier and the 5 award arbitrary and capricious. Further, the Tribunal proceeded ex parte without affording the appellants an opportunity to submit a written statement, thereby violating principles of natural justice. Additionally, the involvement of the said Government vehicle is doubtful as the FIR registered immediately after the accident did not mention its registration number, and the vehicle was seized only after nearly two months despite early police knowledge of its involvement, a fact the Tribunal failed to scrutinize. In light of these material irregularities and misappreciations of evidence, the impugned award is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. No representation was made on behalf of the claimants despite due issuance of notice to them. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-State at length and carefully perused the material available on record, including, in particular, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 6. The offending vehicle involved in the accident was an Ambulance (Maruti Van) bearing registration No. CG 02/4218, which was owned and operated by the State of Chhattisgarh at the time of the incident. The said vehicle collided with the motorcycle of the deceased, Karan Lal Narange, bearing registration No. CG 08/NG/2341, resulting in his death. As the vehicle was being plied under a State Government scheme and was admittedly under the 6 use and control of the Government at the relevant time, the learned Tribunal rightly held that the liability to satisfy the award rests with the State of Chhattisgarh. 7. No cross-appeal, cross-objection, or any separate appeal has been filed in the present matter. So far as the compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the case of the claimants and awarded an appropriate amount under the heads of dependency, deductions, and multiplier. However, the amounts awarded under the heads of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses are not in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance company vs. Pranay Sethi 1 . and therefore merit reconsideration in accordance with the said judgment. 8. 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. 9. However, with regard to the components of future prospects, loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses, this Court is of the considered view that the compensation awarded under these heads is not in consonance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Keeping in 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 7 view the nature of the occupation of the deceased, the date of the accident, prevailing wage structure at the relevant time, cost of living, and other relevant economic indicators, this Court is inclined to enhance the amount of compensation under the following heads: Sn. 1. 2. Heads Loss of Dependency Loss of Consortium Rs.48,000 x 5 (10% enhancement in every three years) 3. Loss of Estate (10% Calculation Rs.6,58,125/- 2,40,000/- (Rs.48,000/- x 5) enhancement in every three Rs,18,000/- years) 4. Funeral Expenses (10% enhancement in every three Rs.18,000/- years) Total amount of compensation : Rs.9,34,125/- 10. Accordingly, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs.9,34,125/- from Rs.7,28,125/-. Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs.2,06,000/-, which shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal (6% p.a.) from the date of claim petition till realization. 11. As a result, the appeal is disposed of. The award dated 29.01.2018 is modified to the extent indicated above. Rest of the terms and conditions of the Tribunal’s award remain intact. 12. The Registry is directed to intimate the claimants in writing 8 regarding the enhanced amount. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena