1 - Smt. Santoshi Bai W/o Fulsai Paikara Aged About 42 Years 2 v. 1 - Santram Lahre, S/o. Late Hetram Lahre, aged about 47 years, R/o Ompur
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:40617 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 840 of 2021 1 - Smt. Santoshi Bai W/o Fulsai Paikara Aged About 42 Years 2 - Hem Singh Paikra S/o Fulsai Paikra Aged About 17 Years Appellant No. 2 Are Minor, Presented Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Santoshi Bai W/o Fulsai Paikra, All are R/o Sahagpur, Kartala, Pahadgaon, Police Station And Tahsil Kartala, District- Korba (C.G.) --- Appellants versus 1 - Santram Lahre, S/o. Late Hetram Lahre, aged about 47 years, R/o Ompur Jhopdi, Police Chowki, Rajgamar, P.S. Balco Nagar, Tahsil And District- Korba (C.G.) (Driver) 2 - Sahri Sarvajanik Yatayat Society Korba, Through- President/ Secretary, Nodal Officer, Korba, Address- Jila Vyapar And Audyogik Centre, Collectorate Campus, Korba, Tahsil And District- Korba (C.G.) (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle) 3 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through- Divisional Manager, Divisional Office-D, Commercial Complex, T.P. Nagar, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) ….Respondents For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate For Respondents No.1 ane 2 : None present though served. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.09 10:55:54 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 12/08/2025 1. Claimant/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 First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba, District – Korba (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 25.08.2021 passed in Claim Case No.56/2019 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.5,99,200/- as compensation in a death case. 2. This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Death of Devpal Singh due to motor accidental injuries, involvement of vehicle Bus bearing number CG-12-X-0289 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") owned by non-applicant No. 2, driven by non-applicant No. 1, non-applicant No. 3 being insurer and liability to satisfy the amount of compensation fastened up non-applicant No. 3, is not in dispute. 3. For the foregoing discussion, this Court is not dealing with the facts of accident as pleaded by the parties in their claim application, reply to the claim application and further adverted in the impugned award but only considering the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties on enhancement of amount of compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of compensation assessing 3 income of deceased aged about 22 years as Rs.7,000/- per month only. She contended that claimants have specifically pleaded that deceased was working as mason and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Even if, claimants failed to prove the nature of occupation and income of deceased, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed his income keeping in mind wages prevailing on the date of accident of daily wages labourer. She also contended that learned Claims Tribunal erred in deducting 50% of the assessed loss of dependency twice. She submits that in the facts of the case, where deceased was unmarried, claimants are mother and brother, appropriate deduction could have been only 50% 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. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants and would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 7. Perusal of the impugned award would show that learned Claims Tribunal in para 25 has computed total loss of income of deceased assessing his income as Rs.7,000/- per month as Rs.15,12,000/-. Claims Tribunal has deducted 50% of Rs.15,12,000/- towards personal and living expenses making it the total income as Rs.7,56,000/-. Tribunal further considered that deceased might be expending 50% of his income upon his mother and again reduced the loss of income as 4 Rs.3,78,000/- and based upon which, compensation is computed by adding 40% of assessed income towards future prospects, applying multiplier of 18 and further awarded compensation under other conventional head, which in the opinion of this Court is erroneous and contrary to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (supra). Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Supra) has clearly held that where the deceased is bachelor, deduction towards personal and living expenses shall be 1/2, therefore, the dependency of claimants mother would be 1/2 of income of deceased. It is ordered accordingly. 8. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellants with regard to income of the deceased is concerned, in claim application, claimants have pleaded income of deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month from the work of Mason, however, it could not be proved, therefore, learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing the income of the deceased on notional basis, however, erred in not taking note of the wages prevailing on the date of accident at the place of residence or the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and assessed income as Rs.7,000/- only. 9. In absence of evidence showing wages prevailing on the date of accident at the place of which deceased was resident of, I find it appropriate to take help of the notification issued by the competent authority under Minimum Wages Act fixing the wages for unskilled labourer, which is Rs.8,140/- in C-zone area for the period from 01.10.2018 till 31.03.2019. Income of deceased as Rs.8,140/-. It is ordered accordingly. 5 10. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of filial consortium to claimant No.1, which is in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has further observed that there shall be increase of 10% on the amount of compensation awarded under the other conventional heads after every three years and therefore, the amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate is to be increased by 10%. It is ordered accordingly. 12. On the basis of above, compensation awarded needs recomputation, which is as under :- SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Annual income : 8,140 x 12 = 97,680.00 2. Addition of 40% towards future : 97,680.00 + 39,072 = 1,36,752.00 prospects 3. 1/2 deduction towards personal : 1,36,752.00 – 68,376.00 = 68,376.00 expenses 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 18 : 68,376 x 18 = 12,30,768.00 5. For loss of filial consortium to : 44,000.00 the appellant No.1. 6. For funeral expenses 7. For loss of estate Grand Total : : : 16,500.00 16,500.00 13,07,768.00 13.
Decision
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.13,07,768.00 instead of 6 Rs.5,99,200/-. Any amount paid to the appellant 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. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram