Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:34906 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 1 - Suresh Kesharwani S/o Sakharam Aged About 48 Years MAC No. 1683 of 2019 2 - Shailendra Kesharwani S/o Shobharam Kesharwani Aged About 45 Years 3 - Sanjay Kesharwani S/o Leeladhar Aged About 25 Years All are R/o Nawagarh, Police Station And Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 1 - Murlidhar S/o Ramadhar Chandra Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Chhapora, Police Station Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. versus --- Appellants 2 - Sumit Agrawal S/o Suresh Agrawal R/o Village Jaijaipur, Ward No. 4, Vikas Nagar, Police Station Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Branch Manager Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited, First Floor, Rajeev Plaza, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Garun Kesharwani S/o Sakharam Aged About 55 Years R/o Nawagarh, Police Station And Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Arun Kesharwani S/o Sakharam Kesharwani Aged About 60 Years 6 - Devendra Kesharwani S/o Sakharam Kesharwani Aged About 65 Years No.5 & 6 both are R/o Nawagarh, Police Station And Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ….Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2 : Ms. Pragati Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Shrishti Upadhyay, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.5 & 6 : Ms. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.11 10:27:40 +0530 2
Legal Reasoning
There is no dispute with respect to assessment of income of Deepika Kesharwani to be of Rs.11,318/- and Deepanshu Kesharwani to be of Rs.10,021/-, application of multiplier of 13 with respect to deceased Shashikala and 18 for deceased Deepika, Deepali and Deepanshu. 15. Perusal of the award would show that though the learned Claims Tribunal has observed that there are four dependents including non- applicant No.4, and recorded that there shall be deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses of the deceased Shashikala, however, while computation of compensation, no such deduction was made. Accordingly, there shall be deduction of 1/4 towards personal 7 living expenses of the deceased Shashikala. It is ordered accordingly. As per description of deceased Deepika Kesharwani, Deepali and Deepanshu given in claim application, they were unmarried at the time of accident, therefore, there shall be deduction of 1/2 towards personal living expenses of the above deceased. It is ordered accordingly. 16. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded consolidated sum of Rs.70,000/- in claim of each deceased towards funeral expenses, loss of estate and for love and affection, which is not properly awarded. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has fixed the amount of compensation under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses as Rs.15,000/- each and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate against death of each deceased. It is ordered accordingly. 18. 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 claim application was filed by the brother-in-law, uncle, and cousins of the deceased, therefore, in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nanu Ram (supra), these claimants are not entitled to compensation for loss of consortium, as such claims are generally limited to the spouse, parents, or children of the deceased. However, looking to their close familial relationship and emotional impact of the 8 loss, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- - Rs.50,000/- are awarded to claimants for each deceased as compensation for love and affection. 19. On the basis of above, the compensation calculated by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- For deceased- Shashikala Kesharwani SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Annual income : 4,136 x 12 = 49,632.00 2. Addition of 30% towards future : 49,632.00 + 14,889.00 = 64,521.00 prospects 3. 1/4 deduction towards personal : 64,521.00 – 16,130.00 = 48,391.00 expenses 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 13 5. For loss love and affection 6. For funeral expenses 7. For loss of estate Grand Total : 48,391 x 13 = 6,29,083.00 : : : : 50,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 7,09,083.00 For deceased- Deepali Kesharwani SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Annual income : 4,136 x 12 = 49,632.00 2. Addition of 40% towards future : 49,632.00 + 19,852.00 = 69,484.00 prospects 3. 1/2 deduction towards personal : 69,484.00 – 34,742.00 = 34,742.00 expenses 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 18 5. For loss love and affection 6. For funeral expenses 7. For loss of estate Grand Total : 34,742 x 18 = 6,25,356.00 : : : : 50,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 7,05,356.00 9 For deceased- Deepika Kesharwani SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Annual income : 11,318 x 12 = 1,35,816.00 2. Addition of 40% towards future : 1,35,816.00 + 54,326.00 = 1,90,142.00 prospects 3. 1/2 deduction towards personal : 1,90,141.00 – 95,071.00 = 95,071.00 expenses 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 18 5. For loss love and affection 6. For funeral expenses 7. For loss of estate Grand Total : 95,071 x 18 = 17,11,278.00 : : : : 50,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 17,91,278.00 As this appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, therefore, this Court has to consider the prayer made by Claimants/appellants seeking enhancement of compensation keeping in mind the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue of application of deduction and multiplier to assess just and fair compensation to be awarded to the claimants. As upon applying the deduction as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the amount of compensation as computed above by this Court of Rs.17,91,278/- in respect of deceased Deepika Kesharwani, is less than the compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal of Rs.19,03,516/-. The compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is not challenged by non-applicants, owner, driver and Insurance Company, therefore, I am not inclined to reduce the compensation as awarded by 10 the learned Claims Tribunal, hence, the claimants will be entitled for compensation as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal of Rs.19,03,516/- in respect of death of deceased Deepika Kesharwani. For deceased- Deepanshu Kesharwani SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Annual income : 10,021 x 12 = 1,20,252.00 2. Addition of 40% towards future : 1,20,252.00 + 48,100.00 = 1,68,352.00 prospects 3. 1/2 deduction towards personal : 1,68,352.00 – 84,176.00 = 84,176.00 expenses 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 18 5. For loss love and affection 6. For funeral expenses 7. For loss of estate Grand Total : 84,176 x 18 = 15,15,168.00 : : : : 50,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,95,168.00 20.
Arguments
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 22/07/2025 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, Janjgir-Champa, District – Janjgir-Champa (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 16.05.2019 passed in Claim Case No.43/2018 thereby allowing application in part and awarding total compensation Rs.5,38,000/-, Rs.6,10,000, Rs.19,03,516/- and 11,52,268/- as compensation on account of death of Shashikala, Deepali, Dipika and Dipanshu respectively. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.1,31,00,000/- under different heads on account of the death of Shashikala, Deepika, Deepali and Dipanshu, who died in the road accident, pleading therein that on 05.09.2011, Shashikala, Deepika, Deepali, and Dipanshu were traveling from Nawagarh to Raipur in a Nano car. When they reached on Main Road near Rajendra Rice Mill at Village Lavan, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kashdol, District Balodabazar, Non-Applicant No.1, while driving the offending truck bearing registration number CG-04/E-3546 in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the Nano car. As a result of the said accident, all the occupants of the car sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. It was pleaded that at the time of accident deceased Shashikala was 35 to 50 years old pensioner woman, Deepika was 25 to 30 years old and working as NM Nurse, Deepali 3 was 20 -25 years old and also working as nurse. Deceased Deepanshu was 20 to 25 years old and working as ward boy and they were getting income of Rs.15,000/- per month. 3. Non-applicant No.1 & 2 filed reply to the claim application resisting the claim. Accident from the offending vehicle was denied and it was pleaded that the accident occurred due to negligence of driver of car. Compensation claimed is highly exaggerated. At the time of accident, non-applicant No.1 was holding valid and effective driving license and offending vehicle was duly insured with non-applicant No.3. 4. Non-Applicant No.3, Insurance Company, filed reply, denying the pleadings made in the claim application. Non-applicant No.3 also denied the happening of accident from the offending vehicle. Accident occurred due to self negligence of driver of nano car. It was also pleaded that at the time of accident, non-applicant No.1 was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle, as such the offending vehicle, was being plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy. 5. 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 compensation as stated above and fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3/ Insurance Company to indemnify the insured. 6. Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation. It is contended that learned Claims Tribunal erred in not adding the amount of 4 compensation towards future prospects and assessing the income of deceased Shashikala as Rs.3,000/- per month and Deepali as Rs.2,500/- per month only. On the date of accident, Shashikala was aged about 50 years and Deepali was 20 years of age. Even if the claimants could not able to prove income of the aforementioned two deceased, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed the income notionally keeping in mind the wage rate prevailing in the area on the date of accident of which the deceased were resident of. He next contended that learned Claims Tribunal not awarded compensation towards loss of consortium to all the claimants and the compensation awarded under other conventional head is less 7. He also submits that the learned Claims Tribunal had also not awarded proper compensation under other conventional head. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant. He submits that the amount of 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. 9. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 10. So far as the grounds raised by learned counsel for appellants with regard to assessment of income of the deceased Shashikala and Deepali is concerned, claimants have pleaded that deceased Shashikala was engaged in business and was also pensioners and deceased Deepali to be nurse, earning of both deceased was 5 Rs.15,000/- per month, however, there is no clinching and admissible 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 income of the deceased on notional basis, however, learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing as Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,500/- as monthly income of the deceased Shashikala and Deepali respectively, overlooking the date of accident on 05.09.2011. For assessing income of the deceased on notional basis, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration 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. 11. In the case at hand, there is no suggesting evidence to prove the wages prevailing at the place where the deceased was resident of on the date of accident. Hence, I find it appropriate to consider occupation and income of deceased to be labourer taking help of the minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for that period. The minimum wages fixed by the authority for the period from 01.04.2011 to 30.09.2011 for unskilled labour is Rs.4,136/- per month. Hence, the income of the deceased Shashikala and Deepali is assessed as Rs.4,136/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 12. Perusal of the impugned award reveals that no amount has been added towards future prospects. Age of the deceased Shashikala as 6 per postmortem report was 50 years, Deepali was 22 years, Deepika was 25 years and deceased Deepanshu was 22 years. Therefore, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, where the victim of a road accident is below 40, not in permanent employment, there shall be addition of 40% of the assessed income is to be made towards future prospects. For victims in the age group of 40 to 50 years, an addition of 25% of the assessed income is is to be made. 13. In the case at hand, at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased Shashikala can be taken in between 40 to 50 years; therefore, her income is to be enhanced by 25% towards future prospects. The deceased Deepika, Deepali, and Deepanshu were all below 40 years of age at the time of the accident; accordingly, their income is to be enhanced by 40% of assessed income. It is ordered accordingly. 14.
Decision
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for the compensation as recomputed above. 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. 21. 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