Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:30072 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1708 of 2019 1 - Smt. Yashoda W/o - Late Brijlal Loniya Aged About 32 Years (Occupation House Wife) 2 - Smt. Bisahin Bai W/o Late Raisingh Loniya Aged About 55 Years (Occupation House Wife) 3 - Deepak Kumar S/o - Late Raisingh Loniya Aged About 20 Years 4 - Kumari Kiran D/o - Late Brijlal Loniya Aged About 17 Years 5 - Kumari Roshani D/o - Late Brijlal Loniya Aged About 14 Years 6 - Suraj S/o - Late Brijlal Loniya Aged About 12 Years Minor 7 - Surya S/o - Late Brijlal Loniya Aged About 9 Years No.4 to 7 are Minors Through : Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Yashoda W/o - Late Brijlal Loniya,r/o - Village Gatouri Tahsil Bilaspur, Thana Koni, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Appellants versus 1 - Parmanand Kashyap S/o - Sitaram Kashyap Aged About 26 Years (Occupation Driver ) R/o - Nevasa, Post Office Belatara, Thana Ratanpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Trailer No. C.G. 12/ A.S./0754) 2 - Ajay Kumar Agrawal S/o - Bansal Lal Agrawal Aged About 40 Years R/o - BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.15 17:54:29 +0530 2 House No. 73, Ward No. 6, Sitamadhi Korba, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh, (Registered Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Trailer No. C.G. 12/ A.S./0754) 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch, Branch Office Korba Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh Through Divisional Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Rama Trade Center, 2nd Floor In Front Of Rajeev Plaza Near Old Bus Stand Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Trailer No. C.G. 12/ A.S./0754) ….Respondents For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 03/07/2025 1. Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 30.04.2018 passed in Claim Case No.728/2017 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.12,67,700/- as compensation in a death case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming total compensation of Rs.52,90,000/- under different heads on account of the death of Brijlal Loniya, who died in the road accident, pleading therein that on 14.05.2018, while Brijlal Loniya was standing on the roadside footpath near Gatauri Chowk after purchasing gutkha, a 3 trailer vehicle bearing registration number CG-12-AS-0754, which was coming towards Ratanpur and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by Non-Applicant No. 1, dashed Brijlal Loniya. As a result, he sustained severe and fatal injuries to his neck, chest, hand, and other parts of his body. He was immediately taken to Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur, and subsequently admitted to Krishna Hospital, Bilaspur on 18.05.2018. Despite medical treatment, Brijlal Loniya succumbed to his injuries during the course of treatment. It was also pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased was healthy and young man of 36 years, was working as electrician and earning Rs.600/- per day. The claimants are dependent upon him and due to his untimely death they are facing great financial crises. 3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2 filed their reply to the claim application resisting the claim. It was pleaded that the claim application was filed on the false and fabricated grounds exaggerating the amount of compensation. At the time of accident, non-applicant No.1 was having valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle and the vehicle was duly insured with non-applicant No.3. Reply was filed on behalf of non-applicant No.3 denying the claim of appellants/claimants. It was pleaded that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was being plied without any permit and fitness in violation of the Motor Vehicle Rules. There is breach of conditions of insurance policy. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part, awarded total compensation of 4 Rs.12,67,700/- and fastened the liability upon non-applicant No.3/ Insurance Company to indemnify the insured. 5. Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation. Income of the deceased is assessed on lower side overlooking the nature of occupation and income as pleaded in the claim application that the deceased on the date of accident was working as electrician and was earning Rs.600/- per day and Rs.18,000/- per month. The learned Claims Tribunal has applied the deduction of 1/3 instead of 1/5 overlooking the number of the claimants to be 7. He also submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has also not awarded proper compensation under other conventional head. He further submits that the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon non- applicants/respondents jointly and severally. Respondent No.3 being the insurer of the offending vehicle is having first liability to satisfy the award of compensation. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants, however, he do not dispute the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that liability to pay the amount of compensation is upon the non-applicants jointly and severally and the first liability to indemnify the award is on respondent No.3 being the insurer of the offending vehicle. He further submits that learned Claims Tribunal in para -24 of the impugned award has considered the number of claimants to be 6. Claimant No.3 is major brother of deceased, hence, he cannot be said to be dependent upon his elder brother. He submits that the amount of 5 compensation as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 8. So far as the grounds raised by learned counsel for appellants with regard to assessment of income of the deceased is concerned, though there is pleading in the claim application that deceased was working as electrician and earning Rs.600/- per day, however, there is no clinching and admissible piece of evidence to prove the said pleadings. In absence of evidence with respect to the occupation and income of the deceased, learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing the income of the deceased on notional basis, however, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month only as income of the deceased overlooking the date of accident as 14.05.2018. For assessing the income of the deceased on notional basis, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken the factors like rise in price index, place of resident, date of accident and the wages prevailing at the place where deceased was resident of. The learned Claims Tribunal could have also taken note of minium wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. 9. In the case at hand, there is no suggesting piece of evidence to prove the wages given on the date of accident at the place where the deceased was resident of. Hence, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased treating him to be labourer taking help of the minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum 6 Wages Act, 1948 for that period. The minimum wages fixed by the authority for the period from 01.04.2018 to 30.09.2018 as Rs.8,100/- per month. Hence, the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.8,100/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 10. So far as the second grounds raised by learned counsel for the appellants with respect to deduction towards personal living expenses of the deceased is concerned, admittedly 7 claimants have filed the claim application. Claimant No.3, Deepak Kumar is son of Rai Singh Loniya. On the date of accident, his father was pre-deceased. The age deceased Brijlal is shown to be 36 years, in the aforementioned facts of the case as also considering the age of claimant No.3 to be only 20 years, it cannot be said that claimant No.3 would not be dependent upon the deceased, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.3 that claimant No.3 cannot be said to be dependent upon the deceased is not sustainable and accordingly it is repelled. The deduction to be made towards personal living expenses of the deceased was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, and it is held that where the number of claimants are more than 6, appropriate deduction will be 1/5. Considering the aforementioned facts of the case and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is ordered that there shall be deduction of 1/5 towards personal living expenses. 11. The deceased on the date of accident was 32 years, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal justified in adding 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects, which is in consonance with the 7 decision of of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Learned Claims Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 15, which is in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (supra). 12. The learned Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and for funeral expenses and further has awarded Rs.40,000/- only towards loss of consortium to the appellant No.1/widow, however, failed to award any amount towards loss of consortium to the appellants No.2 to 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 has explained the types of consortium and held that there are three types of loss of consortium i.e. loss of spousal consortium for widow/ widower, loss of parental consortium to the children and loss of filial consortium to parents. The appellant No. 2 being mother and appellants No. 4 to 7 being children of the deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium and parental consortium respectively and appellant No.1 being wife of the deceased is entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium. It is ordered accordingly. 13. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,89,700/- towards medical expenses, which cannot be demonstrated to be erroneous or some medical bills though submitted before the Claims Tribunal has escaped consideration. Accordingly, award of Rs.1,89,700/- towards medical expenses does not call for any interference. 8 14. On the basis of above, the compensation calculated by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Annual income : 8,100 x 12 = 97,200.00 2. Addition of 40% towards future : 97,200.00 + 38,880.00 = 1,36,080.00 prospects 3. 1/5 deduction towards personal : 1,36,080.00 – 27,216.00 = 1,08,864.00 expenses 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 15 5. For loss of spousal, parental and filial consortium to the appellants No.1 & 2 and 4 to 7 Rs.40,000/- each (40,000 x 6) : 1,08,864 x 15 = 16,32,960.00 : 2,40,000.00 6. For funeral expenses 7. For loss of estate 8. Medical expenses Grand Total : : : : 15,000.00 15,000.00 20,92,660.00 1,89,700.00 15.
Decision
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.20,92,660.00. Any amount paid to the appellants as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Balram Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge