Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2025:CGHC:16581 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1823 of 2019 1 - Smt. Lalita Nag Wd/o Late Ranto Singh Nag Aged About 26 Years Resident f Village Mingachal P.O. Naimed P.S. Naimed District Bijapur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Lachhindar Nag S/o Late Balram Nag Aged About 50 Years Resident Of Village Mingachal P.O. Naimed P.S. Naimed District Bijapur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Miss Ratni Nag D/o Late Lachhindar Nag Aged About 20 Years Resident of Village Mingachal P.O. Naimed P.S. Naimed District Bijapur Chhattisgarh. ... Claimants / Appellants versus 1 - Praveen Jhadi S/o Nilaiya Jhadi Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Gangalur P.S. Gangalur District Bijapur Chhattisgarh (Driver Cum Owner of the Vehicle). 2 - The Divisional Manager Divisional Office The New India Assurance
Legal Reasoning
Co. Ltd. Chauhan State First Floor Near Mourya Talkies Supela Bhilai P.S. Supela Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh(Insurer). ... Respondents 2 For the Appellants For respondent no.1 For respondent no.2 : : :
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate. None Mr. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 08/04/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed challenging the award dated 08.03.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Bastar, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh, in Claim Case No 79/2017. By the impugned award, the learned tribunal has awarded Rs. 6,77,000/- as compensation to the claimants due to death of deceased Ranto Singh Nag in an unfortunate accident which took place on 12.08.2017 by rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 driver of offending vehicle. 2. As per the pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, the claimants are the wife and parents of deceased Ranto Singh. On 12.08.2017 the deceased was going on his motorcycle from his native place Mingachal to in-law’s place Gangulur. On the way, at about 6.00 p.m., Respondent no1 who was driving the Commander Jeep bearing Regn. No. C.G.04/2505 in rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle of deceased from behind near village Pamalvaya due to which, he fell down and because of grievous 3 injuries sustained by him, he died on the spot. The said vehicle was owned by respondent no.1 owner and insured with respondent no.2 /Insurance company. The claimants being legal heirs of deceased filed claim application u/s 166 of MVA seeking a total compensation of Rs.24,18,200/- on various heads. 3. The learned claims Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence brought on record and the pleadings made in application, took the notional income of the deceased as Rs.4500/- per month, deducted one-third personal expenses and applied multiplier of 17 and thus worked out the total loss of dependency to Rs.6,12,000/-. Further more, Rs. 65,000/- has been awarded on other heads. Thus a total compensation of Rs. 6,77,000/- has been awarded in favour of the appellants with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of claim application till its realisation. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side and needs enhancement. He further submits that the claimants have pleaded the income of deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month but the learned Claims Tribunal has only assessed the income of deceased as Rs.4500/- per month and awarded total compensation of Rs.6,77,000/- including the amount of Rs.65000/- under other conventional heads. He submits that the Tribunal has erred in not adding the future prospects to the income of the deceased. He further submits that the Tribunal has also awarded lesser amount on other heads, therefore, this appeal may be allowed and amount of compensation may be enhanced suitably. 4 None appeared on behalf of respondent no.1. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 supports the award and 5. 6. submits that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has granted just compensation which needs no interference. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.6,77,000/- awarded by the tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case ? 9. As regards the income of deceased, the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing the photography works but no documentary evidence in support thereof has been produced, but it cannot be said that the deceased was not earning anything from his work. Therefore in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident and further considering the minimum wage rate structure prevailing on the date of accident, price index and cost of living etc., especially the notification by the Labour Department for minimum wages, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs.8450/- per month as minimum wages at the relevant time of accident i.e., 12.08.2017. Thus the income comes to Rs. 1,01,400/- per annum (8450 x 12). So far as future prospects is concerned, as per the National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e.,40,560/-, the total annual income would come to Rs.1,41,960/- (101400 plus 40560) 5 10. At the time of accident, the age of the deceased was stated to be 28 years and the claimants are wife and parents of the deceased so the deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3rd and after deducting the personal expenses i.e., 47,320/-, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 94,640 (Rs.1,41,960 minus 47,320). In view of decision of the Hon’ble Suprme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC l2l and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 considering the age of deceased, after applying the multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency is worked out to Rs.16,08,880 (94,640 x 17). Under the other heads, the claimants are further entitled to get Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and as per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, AIR Online 2018 SC, each dependent/claimant is entitled to get Rs.40,000/- for loss of love and affection. In this case, there are three claimants, therefore, this Court is computing the compensation in the following manner : 1. 2. 3. 4. Total loss of dependency Rs. 16,08,880/- Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Love and affection (Rs.40000 x 3) Rs.1,20,000/- Funeral expenses Total Rs. 15,000/- Rs.17,58,880/- 11. Thus the total compensation is recomputed to Rs.17,58,880/- from which after deduction of Rs. 6,77,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.10,81,880/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall 6 carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. 12.
Decision
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 13. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of para-legal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area where the claimants reside. Rao Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge