1 - Smt. Amleshwari Dhruw W/o Late Dashru Dhruw Aged About 30 Years 2 v. 1 - Sh
Case Details
-1- 2025:CGHC:17177 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1183 of 2020 1 - Smt. Amleshwari Dhruw W/o Late Dashru Dhruw Aged About 30 Years 2 - Kalyani Dhruw D/o Late Dashru Dhruw Aged About 12 Years 3 - Kishn Dhruw S/o Late Dashru Dhruw Aged About 9 Years 4 - Kanhaiya Dhruw S/o Late Dashru Dhruw Aged About 5 Years Appellants No. 2 to 4 are minor through natural guardian mother Smt. Amleshwari Dhruw aged about 30 years, W/o Late Dashru Dhruw, All the appellants are R/o Village Achanakpur, Police Station Bhatapara, District Balodabazaqr, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Shatruhan Dhruw S/o Faguram Dhruw R/o Village Birjadeeh, Police Station Bhatapara, Rural District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh [Driver of Tractor bearing No. C.G. 06-E-6225] 2 - Lakheshwer Patel S/o Ravishanker Patel R/o Village Girsa, P.O. Jounda Saraipali, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh [Owner Of Tractor Bearing No CG 06 E 6225) Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.04.24 10:34:20 +0530 3 - L & T Insurance Co. Ltd. Through In Charge Officer, L & T Insurance Co. Ltd. First Floor Chawla Complex Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh [Insurer Of Tractor Bearing No. CG 06 E 6225] ... Respondent(s) -2- __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate For Resp. No.1 & 2 Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate : For Resp. No.3 Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate _______________________________________________________ Mr. Tanmay Rai, Advocate on behalf of : S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 15/04/2025 1. Heard on IA No.1 of 2020, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing this appeal. 2. Pleadings made in application and submission of learned counsel for appellants is opposed by learned counsel for respective respondents. 3. On due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and the reasons assigned in the application for condonation of delay, the application (IA No.1) is allowed. Delay of 699 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally at admission stage. 5. This is the claimant’s appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal of the First Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) vide award dated 28.09.2018 passed in Claim Case No.325 of 2016 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application in part, awarded Rs.12,79,600/- as compensation and fastened liability upon respondent No.3 to -3- satisfy the award. 6. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that claimants/appellants filed an application under Sections 166 of the Act of 1988 pleading therein that on 13.12.2014 at about 4:30 p.m., when Dasru Dhruw was standing on the roadside near the cremation ground in village Kumhari, at that time, non-applicant No.1, driving the Tractor no. CG-06-E-6225 in a rash and negligent manner, hit Dasru Dhruw standing on the roadside causing grievous bodily injuries to him, as a result of which he died during treatment in the hospital. At the time of the accident, the deceased Dasru Dhruw was a healthy person of 32 years and he was maintaining his family by earning a monthly income of Rs.9,000/- by working as a labourer in a brick kiln. The applicants have prayed for compensation of Rs. 22,86,000/- under various heads. 7. Non-applicants by way of filing their written statement stated that on 13.12.2014, non-applicant No. 1 got his vehicle tractor No. CG- 06-E-6225 washed at Kumhari Ghat and was going towards the road at a slow speed driving cautiously. When he reached near the cremation ground of Kumhari, at that time, an unknown person suddenly came in front of the vehicle in a drunken state and met with an accident. There is no negligence on the part respondent No.1 in the said accident. Non-applicant No.1 was holding a valid and effective driving licence and the said vehicle was duly insured by non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company, therefore, if there is any liability to pay compensation, then non-applicant No.3 is liable for the same. -4- 8. Non-applicant No. 3 in its written statement denied the facts mentioned in the claim application and pleaded that it is clear from the material available in criminal case that the deceased and other persons were travelling in the tractor, therefore the deceased does not come in the category of third party. The deceased was travelling against the terms of the insurance policy and he himself was negligent, therefore he is not entitled to receive compensation for his own negligence. The mandatory provisions of the Act of 1988 have not been followed by the owner and driver of the vehicle. At the time of the accident, non-applicant No. 1 did not have a valid and effective driving licence to drive the tractor and non-applicant No. 2 despite knowing this allowed him to drive the vehicle and hence the conditions of the insurance policy have been violated by him. On the date of accident, there was no valid and effective permit and fitness of the offending vehicle, hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 9. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non- applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which applicant/claimant suffered grievous injuries and died. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found proved, learned Claims Tribunal held non- applicants liable to pay the amount of compensation. Assessing income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month and calculating the loss suffered by the claimant under different heads, awarded -5- total compensation of Rs.12,79,600/ -. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month overlooking the categorical statement of Smt. Amelshwari Dhruw (AW1) wife the deceased wherein she has stated that her husband was a healthy person and working as labourer, earning Rs.9,000/- per month. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has also not awarded any amount of compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’ to appellants No. 2 to 4/children of deceased as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130. He prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation accordingly. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents oppose the submission of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and submits that the amount of compensation awarded is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and it does not call for any interference. In addition, learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company fairly submits that appeal filed by respondent -Insurance Company challenging the impugned award in MAC No.263 of 2019 was dismissed on merit vide order dated 20.09.2019. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. 13. Undisputedly, non-applicant No.1 is the driver of the offending vehicle, non-applicant No.2 is the owner and non-applicant No.3 is -6- the insurer of the vehicle. Motor accidental death of Dasru Dhruw is also not in dispute. 14. So far as the assessment of income of the deceased is concerned, learned Claims Tribunal held that it has been proved that at the time of accident deceased was working as labourer in a brick-kiln, however, in absence of any specific evidence regarding income of the deceased, statement of appellants/claimants of deceased earning Rs.10,000-12,000/- per month was disbelieved and assessed monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month, which in the opinion of this Court, does not warrant any interference in view of the Notification issued by the Commissioner and Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. Looking to the age of the deceased to be 32 years on the date of accident, an addition of 40% towards future prospects has correctly been made in the assessed income of the deceased in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680. As there are four dependents of the deceased, in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, deduction of ¼ towards personal and living expenses has been made and multiplier of 16 has also been correctly applied. However, from perusal of the impugned award it is not reflecting that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded any amount of compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’ to appellants No. 2 to 4 being children of the -7- deceased. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nanu Ram alias Chuhru (supra), the widow of the deceased as also children and parents of the deceased all are entitled for loss of consortium i.e. loss of spousal consortium, loss of parental consortium and loss of filial consortium. Learned Tribunal fell into error in not granting parental consortium to appellants/claimants No. 2 to 4 being children of the deceased and, therefore, I find it appropriate to award Rs.40,000/- each to claimants No. 2 to 4 towards loss of parental consortium. Learned Claims Tribunal was correct in awarding Rs.40,000/- as loss of consortium to appellant No. 1/wife, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. 15. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the discussions as also law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned decisions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. (A) Loss of Income 6000 x 12 = 72,000 Addition (B) prospects @ 40% towards future 72000 x 40% =28,800 72000 + 28800 = 1,00,800 (C) Deduction of ¼ personal and living expenses towards 100800 x 1/4 =25,200 (100800 - 25,200 = 75,600) (D) Multiplier of 16 75600 x 16 = 12,09,600/- Rs. 12,09,600 -8- 2. 3. 4. 5. Funeral Expenses Loss of Estate Loss of spousal consortium of Rs.40,000 to claimant No.1/wife of the deceased Loss of Parental Consortium of Rs.40,000/- each to claimants No. 2 to 4/ children of the deceased : : : : (+) Rs. 15,000 (+) Rs. 15,000 (+) Rs. 40,000 (+) Rs. 1,20,000 Total compensation : Rs. 13,99,600/- 16. Now the appellants/claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs.13,99,600/- instead of Rs.12,79,600/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 17. Aforementioned total amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.
Decision
18. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/--/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen