Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:34545 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 678 of 2021 1. Smt. Annu Padamwar, W/o Late Jitendra Padamwar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Parpa, Nakapara, Guru Govind Singh Ward, Jagdalpur, Police Station Bodhghat, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Claimant). 2. Ramesh Padamwar, S/o Late Kisanpal Padamwar, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village Parpa, Nakapara, Guru Govind Singh Ward, Jagdalpur, Police Station Bodhghat, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Claimant). 3. Urvashi Padamwar, W/o Ramesh Padamwar, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Village Parpa, Nakapara, Guru Govind Singh Ward, Jagdalpur, Police Station Bodhghat, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Claimant). 4. Ku. Lisa Padamwar, D/o Late Jitendra Padamwar, Aged About 9 Years, Appellant No.4 Is Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Appellant No. 01, R/o Village Parpa, Nakapara, Guru Govind Singh Ward, Jagdalpur, Police Station Bodhghat, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Claimant). 5. Purvi Padamwar, D/o Late Jitendra Padamwar, Aged About 7 Years, Appellant No.5 Is Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Appellant No. 01, R/o Village Parpa, Nakapara, Guru Govind Singh Ward, Jagdalpur, Police Station Bodhghat, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Claimant). 6. Shivam, S/o Late Jitendra Padamwar, Aged About 2 Years, Appellant No. 6 Is Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Appellant No. 01, R/o Village Parpa, Nakapara, Guru Govind Singh Ward, Jagdalpur, Police Station Bodhghat, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Claimant). versus ... Appellants 2
Legal Reasoning
1. Mahavir Sahu, S/o Shri Pitambar Lal Sahu, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Kumhalikala, Police Station Ranitarai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Driver). 2. Prateek Kumar Kashyap, S/o Shri Lakhendra Kashyap, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Antagarh Chowk, Ward No.13, Post Antagarh, District Kanker Chhattisgarh (Owner). 3. Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Anupama Chowk, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Insurer). ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 21/07/2025 1. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal challenging the impugned award dated 08.09.2021 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) in Claim Case No.39/2020, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application seeking compensation filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”), awarded Rs.16,47,500/- as total compensation. 2. This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal by passing impugned award. Date of accident dated 06.10.2019, death of Jitendra Kumar due to motor accidental injuries and liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon non-applicant No.3/insurance company is not in dispute. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 06.10.2019, the deceased Jitendra Padamwar parked his truck bearing Registration No.CG-17-D-1305 3 near road side, Village Jagtara and went to eat food and when he came back and was about to start his truck, the offending vehicle driven by the non applicant No.1 rashly and negligently dashed the vehicle of the deceased, as a result of which the deceased Jitendra sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. Accident was reported to concerned police station based upon which Crime was registered in the Police Station Gurur against the non applicant No.1. Subsequently, a claim petition was filed by the claimants before the learned Claims Tribunal, which was partly allowed and Rs.16,47,500 was awarded in favour of the claimants with 9% interest p.a. from application till its actual realization, against which the present appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the awarded amount. 4. In the aforementioned facts of the case, this Court is not discussing the facts of the case as pleaded by the respective parties as also considered and discussed in the impugned award. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that in the claim application, claimants have specifically pleaded that the occupation of the deceased as driver of the truck and his income as Rs.15,000/- per month. Learned Claims Tribunal erroneously has disbelief the said pleading and the evidence in this regard and assessed the income as Rs.7,500/- per month only. He further contended that the amount of compensation awarded under the other conventional heads is also on lower side. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3/insurance company opposes the submission made by the counsel for the appellants and submits that the learned Claims Tribunal in para 13 of the impugned award has considered the pleadings and evidence of the claimants with regard to 4 the nature of occupation and income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month. The learned Claims Tribunal has categorically recorded a finding that in the driving license of the deceased produced before the learned Claims Tribunal does not bear endorsement of heavy goods vehicle and further salary certificate with regard to the income of the deceased has not been submitted and proved in accordance with law. It is contended that the amount of compensation computed and awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of claim case carefully. 8. To appreciate the first ground raised by the counsel for the appellant, I perused the copy of license of the deceased as submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal by the claimants as Ex.A/10. It mentions the class of vehicle as light motor vehicle and transport vehicle. The currency of the license of the light motor vehicle/non-transport vehicle is upto 2034 and for transport vehicle its currency was from 10.02.2017 to 13.02.2020. The date of accident was 06.10.2019 meaning thereby deceased met with an accident, when his driving license was effective and valid to drive the transport vehicle. 9. Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the forms and contents of the license to drive under Section 10(2), the classes of vehicle are categorically mentioned as under:- 10(2) A learners licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely: (a) motor cycle without gear; 5 (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) [adapted vehicle]; (d) light motor vehicle; [(e) transport vehicle;] (i) road-roller; (j) motor vehicle of a specified description. 10. Section 10(2)(e) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was substituted with effect from 14.11.1994 and the pre-amended clause of Section 10(2)(e) to 10(2)(h) has been merged under the head of transport vehicle. In view of the aforementioned provisions of Section 10(2)(e, it is apparent that on the date of accident the deceased was having in his name the license to drive the transport vehicle, which also includes the heavy goods vehicle and as per pleading, on the date of accident, the deceased after parking his truck was standing on the side of the road, upon which the offending vehicle came there driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently and dashed the deceased. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in disbelieving the nature of occupation of the deceased as pleaded by the claimants in their claim application and also supported by way of filing the extract of driving license. The said finding of the Claims Tribunal is not sustainable and accordingly, it is set aside and it is held that on the date of accident the deceased was working as the driver of the truck. 11. So far as the income of the deceased as pleaded by the claimants and stated in their evidence of Rs.15,000/-. Perusal of the record would show that the claimants have examined the claimant No.1 as AW-1, claimant No.2/Chhatu Prajapati as AW-2. In their evidence both the witnesses have stated the nature of occupation of the deceased to be 6 driver, however, with regard to income neither employer was examined, nor the salary certificate issued by the employer was placed before the Claims Tribunal. 12. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the income of the deceased is to be assessed notionally. The accident is dated 06.10.2019 and according to the minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the wages fixed for the highly skilled labourer is mentioned as Rs.10,810/- of C-Zone area. Apart from the wages, the driver or the employees of the transport vehicle are also being paid the daily allowances for purpose of food, which cannot be ignored, and therefore, I find it appropriate to assess the daily allowance as Rs.100/- per day and Rs.3,000/- per month, and therefore, the total monthly income of the deceased will be Rs.13,810/-. It is ordered accordingly. 13. The learned Claims Tribunal has applied the deduction of 1/4th, applied multiplier of 15, further awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, which is to the tune of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (SMT) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation under the head of loss of spousal consortium to the claimant No.1, loss of filial consortium to claimants No.2 & 3 and loss of parental consortium to claimants No.4 to 6 as Rs.40,000/- to the each claimant, which is also to the tune of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. 7 14. For the foregoing discussion, I find it appropriate to recompute the amount of compensation as under:- Particulars Compensation A) Annual Loss of income/ dependency = Rs.26,10,090/- Rs.1,65,720/- (Rs.13,810 x12) B) Addition of 40% of established income towards future prospects (Rs.1,65,720 x 40% = Rs. 2,32,008) C) Deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses (Rs.2,32,008 x 1/4= Rs.58,002; Rs.2,32,008 – Rs.58,008/- = Rs.1,74,006/-) D) Multiplier of 15 Rs.1,74,006 x 15 = Rs.26,10,090/- Loss of spousal consortium to claimant No.1, Loss of filial consortium to claimants No.2 to 3 and Loss of parental consortium to claimants No.4 to 6 (Rs.40,000 to each claimants) (40,000 x 6) Rs.2,40,000/- Loss of estate Funeral Expenses Total Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.28,80,090/- 15. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of Rs.28,80,090/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 16.
Decision
In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA NIRALA