Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:31361 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1803 of 2019 1 - Smt. Gomti Bai Patel W/o Balram Prasad Patel Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kosmanda, Police Station - Palari, District (Revenue And Civil) Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh versus --- Appellant 1 - Umashankar Yadav S/o Aamir Singh Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Transport Nagar Hathkhoj Bhilai, Police Station Charoda, District (Revenue And Civil) Durg Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Truck Vehicle No. C.G. /07/b.A.0575) 2 - Surjit Singh S/o Sadhu Singh R/o Village Saini Royal Cargo T.P. Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Vehicle No. C.G. 07/b.A./0575)., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Station Road In Front Of Church Above Bano Manzil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Truck Vehicle No. C.G. 07/b.A./0575). 4 - Balram Patel S/o Dhel Singh Patel Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Kosmanda Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ….Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Utsav Mahishwar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.16 11:24:47 +0530 08/07/2025 1. Claimant/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking 2 enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar, District – Bhatapara – Balodabazar (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 17.05.2019 passed in Claim Case No.108/2018 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.7,50,400/- 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.17,00,000/- under different heads on account of the death of Taman Lal Patel, who died in the road accident, pleading therein that on 01.06.2018, at about 6:30 AM, Taman Lal Patel was traveling towards Village Kosmanda on motorcycle bearing registration number CG-04 FJ 4854, along with his brother Tikeshwar Patel. At that time, Non-Applicant No.1, while driving truck bearing registration number CG-07 BA 0575 in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, Taman Lal Patel sustained severe head injuries and succumbed to the injuries on spot. It was also pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased was working as mason and was earning Rs.300/- per day. The claimants were dependent upon him and due to his untimely death they are facing great financial crises. 3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2 did not appear before the Claims Tribunal and they were proceeded ex-parte. Non-applicant No.3 filed its reply resisting the pleading in claim application. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, non-applicant No.1 was not having valid and effective driving license. The offending vehicle was being plied in breach of 3 conditions of insurance policy as there was no valid permit to drive the vehicle. 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 Rs.7,50,400/- and fastened the liability upon non-applicant No.3/ Insurance Company to indemnify the insured. 5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation assessing the income of the deceased on lower side overlooking the nature of occupation as pleaded in the claim application and the date of accident. Award of compensation on other conventional heads is also not sufficient. He prays for enhancement of award suitably. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants and would submit that learned Claims Tribunal in absence of any proof of nature of occupation and income of deceased has correctly assessed the income of the deceased on notional basis. 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. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 8. Perusal of the record of claim case would show that date of accident is 01.06.2018. Claimant except the self serving statement before the 4 Claims Tribunal has not produced any evidence to prove the nature of occupation and income of the deceased. The evidence of Panchram Patel (A.W.-2) with regard to nature of employment of deceased is not admissible as he is one of the relative of the deceased. In the aforementioned facts of the case, learned Claims Tribunal has taken correct step of assessing the income of the deceased on notional basis, however, erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month only, overlooking the date of accident as 30.06.2018. For assessing the income of the deceased on notional basis, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration 9. 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. 10. 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 Wages Act, 1948 for that period. The minimum wages of unskilled labour of C- Zone city is 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. 5 11. The deceased on the date of accident was 19 years of age as mentioned in the postmortem report, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal justified in adding 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects, which is in consonance with the decision of of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 12. Learned Claims Tribunal has rightly applied the deduction of 1/2 towards personal living expenses as the deceased was unmarried on the date of accident and the application of multiplier of 18 by the learned Claims Tribunal is in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, 13. The learned Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and for funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to the appellant. 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. 1/2 deduction towards personal : 1,36,080.00 – 68,040.00 = 68,040.00 expenses 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 18 : 68,040 x 18 = 12,24,720.00 5. For loss of filial consortium to : 40,000.00 the appellant 6. For funeral expenses : 15,000.00 7. For loss of estate Grand Total 6 : : 15,000.00 12,94,720.00 15.
Decision
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellant shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.12,94,720.00. Any amount paid to the appellant as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% 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. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram