Jag Sai & Ors v. New India Insurance Company Limited & Ors
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2025:CGHC:31764 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1549 of 2018 1 - Jag Sai S/o Shri Mohan Aged About 45 Years R/o Kanwar By Caste, R/o Village Patiyadand, P.S. Bhaiyathan District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dinesh Paikra, S/o Shri Jag Sai Aged About 16 Years (Minor) Through His Natural Guardian Father Jag Sai, Son Of Shri Mohan, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Kanwar By Caste, R/o Village Patiyadand, P.S. Bhaiyathan District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Rajmaniya W/o Shri Jag Sai Aged About 42 Years R/o Kanwar By Caste, R/o Village Patiyadand, P.S. Bhaiyathan District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - New India Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, New India Insurance Corporation Limited, Sada Complex, 2 Transport Nagar, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Cg04e/3931), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
2 - Nikhil Karmkar S/o Shri Jateen Karmkar Aged About 50 Years R/o Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisarh. (Driver Cg04e/3931), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Radha Prasad Gupta S/o Late Shankar Dayal Gupta, Occupation - Vehicle Owner (Gupta Bus Service) R/o Old Bus Stand, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Owner Cg04e/3931)., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No.1 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. For Respondents No. 2 & : None. 3 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 09/07/2025 Order on Board 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 21.08.2018 passed by the learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 147/2016 (“Jag Sai & Ors. Vs. New India Insurance Company Limited & Ors.”) whereby an amount of Rs. 9,77,200/- 3 with interest @ 9% per annum has been awarded in the favour of the claimants of the deceased for their irreparable loss. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that the appellants are the claimants, respondent No.1 is the insurer of the bus bearing registration No. CG 04 E/3931, respondent No.2 is the driver of the said bus and respondent No.3 is also a driver. The appellants have filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the learned Claims Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 22,20,222/- on account of the death of Ramesh Kumar. As per the claimants on 17.04.2016, Ramesh Kumar was driving a Bolero (No. MP 65 C 0267) from Kapsara to Podi along with his friends Jitendra, Satyanarayan and Mahipal, when the offending bus driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 2 dashed the Bolero, causing grievous injuries to Ramesh Kumar who died on the spot. The insurer i.e. respondent No.1 vide its reply denied all allegations and contended that the bus was being operated in breach of the insurance policy and without a valid fitness certificate and also alleged contributory negligence due to the involvement of two vehicles. Respondents No.1 and 2 jointly submitted that the Bolero driver was under the influence of alcohol and had hit the stationary bus at around 01:00 AM, they also raised the issue of misjoinder of parties as the owner and insurer of the Bolero were not made parties to the claim. The 4 learned Claims Tribunal after considering the evidence and arguments, partly allowed the claim and awarded to the tune of Rs. 9,77,200/- to the claimants, which the appellants contend is unjust, illegal and contrary. Therefore, the appellants/claimants of the deceased preferred an application claiming a total compensation of Rs 22,20,000/-. 3. After considering the evidence and documents brought on record, the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 72,000/- per annum. After deduction of 1/2 of the income i.e. Rs. 36,000/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 36,000/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 25 years and the appellants/claimants are the son, brother and mother of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 6,48,000/-. After adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 2,59,200/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 9,07,200/-. Further Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 40,000/- towards consortium has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 9,77,200/- in favour of the son, brother and mother of the deceased with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 5 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 9,77,200/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. 5. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 1 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 6. None for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 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. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 10. As regards the income of the deceased, the learned claims 6 Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month. Therefore, the Tribunal keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, wage structure prevailing on the date of accident and also the evidence available on record, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month which appears to be proper on accident dated i.e. 17.04.2016. Hence, accepting the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month, the annual income comes to Rs. 72,000/- per annum. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 25 years unmarried and the appellant/claimants are the father, brother and mother of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/2 (Rs. 36,000/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 36,000/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 6,48,000/-. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards future prospects 7 i.e. Rs. 2,59,200/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 9,07,000/-. The claimants are further entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate (increase of 10% in every three years) and Rs. 18,000/- for funeral expenses (increase of 10% in every three years). As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for Rs. (40,000X3+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 1,44,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. father, brother and mother of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 10,87,200/- in the following manner:- S.No. 01. 02. Heads Calculation Towards loss of dependency Rs. 9,07,000/- Towards consortium along with Rs. 1,44,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X3+10% +10%). 03. Towards loss of estate along Rs. 18,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years. 04. Towards Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/- along with increase of 10% in every three years. Total Rs. 10,87,200/- 11. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 10,87,200/-. After deducting Rs. 9,77,200/- as awarded by the tribunal, the 8 enhancement would be Rs. 1,10,000/-. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants i.e. father, brother and mother of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Sd/- Judge Raghu Jat