Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:35534 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2077 of 2019 1 - Manpreet Kaur Wd/o Late Arvendar Aged About 23 Years R/o Katcheripara Baikunthpur, Police Station And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District - Koriya Chhattisgarh. Permanent R/o Village Nurpur, District - Bijnour ( U. P.), District : Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh 2 - Jasbir Singh S/o Mula Singh, Aged About 45 Years R/o Katcheripara Baikunthpur, Police Station And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District - Koriya Chhattisgarh. Permanent R/o Village Nurpur, District - Bijnour ( U. P.), District : Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh 3 - Satnam Kaur W/o Jasbir Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Katcheripara Baikunthpur, Police Station And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District - Koriya Chhattisgarh. Permanent R/o Village Nurpur, District - Bijnour ( U. P.), District : Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh 4 - Gurpreet Singh S/o Late Arvendar Singh @ Jenti Aged About 1 Years (Minor ) Through Represented By Natural Guardian Mother Manpreet Kaur ) R/o Katcheripara Baikunthpur, Police Station And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District - Koriya Chhattisgarh. Permanent R/o Village Nurpur, District - Bijnour ( U. P.), District : Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh Versus ... Appellants 1 - Kanhaiya Lal S/o Lol Prasad Vishwakarma, R/o Village Bakrahi, Police Station Karma, District Sonbhadra ( U. P. ) ( Owner Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. U. P. - 64 - T - 8665), District : Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh 2 - Rajendra Gupta S/o Devmuni Gupta Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Parwan, Police Station Chopan, District - Sonbhadra ( U. P. ) Permanent R/o Village SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 Matouliya, Police Station Robartganj, District Sonbhadra ( U. P. ) ( Driver Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. U. P. - 64 - T - 8665), District : Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh 3 - Branch Manager, Chola Mandal General Insurance Company Limited,
Legal Reasoning
Dhamirpur Road, Near Rahul Complex, Chola Mandal Company, Axis Bank First Floor, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. U. P. - 64 - T - 8665), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Gunja Taram, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Ramayan Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anshuman Rabra, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 23/07/2025 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 28.08.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District – Koriya (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 50/2017. 2. Involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident on 16.03.2017, death of Arvinder Singh @ Janti due to motor accidental injuries is not in dispute. Involvement of vehicle driven by Non-Applicant No. 2 owned by Non-Applicant No. 1 and insured by Non-Applicant No. 3, fastening liability to satisfy the award upon insurance company is not disputed. As this appeal is filed seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal, this Court is not adverting to the facts of the case and is only considering the prayer made by the claimants/appellants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. 3 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that on the date of accident, deceased was 26 years of age, able-bodied person doing business of steel railings and earning Rs. 75,000/- per month. Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month. She also submits that the learned Claims Tribunal awarded only Rs. 40,000/- towards the loss of consortium to the Applicant/Claimant No. 1 and erred in not awarding loss of consortium to the Applicants No. 2 to 4 and hence, she prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded suitably. 4. On the other hand, learned counsels for the Non-applicant No. 3/Insurance Company opposes the submission of counsel for the appellants/claimants and would submit that the applicants failed to prove, nature of occupation and income of the deceased by placing cogent and reliable piece of evidence. Therefore, learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidence and facts available on record has awarded just and proper amount of compensation which does not call for any interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of claim case. 6. Perusal of the record would show that the claimants though have pleaded in the claim application about the nature of occupation of the deceased and his earning to be Rs. 75,000/- per month from the business of steel railing, however, no documentary evidence was produced to prove income as pleaded. The Applicant/Claimant No. 1 i.e. wife of the deceased is examined as AW -1, except her self-serving statement, there is no other evidence in proof of income pleaded. No 4 other witness is examined before the learned Claims Tribunal to prove the nature of occupation and income of the deceased. 7. In the aforementioned facts of the case, where the claimants have only made self-serving statements before the learned Claims Tribunal and no other admissible piece of evidence is brought on record, I am of the view that Claims Tribunal justified in disbelieving the nature of occupation and income of the deceased as pleaded by the claimants in the claim application. Further, the learned Claims Tribunal rightly held the occupation of deceased to be one of Unskilled Labourer and assessed his income on notional basis. However, Claims Tribunal fell into error in assessing income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500 per month overlooking the date of accident as 16.03.2017. 8. In cases where the claimants failed to prove income of the deceased, it is upon the Claims Tribunal/Courts to assess his/her income on notional basis taking into consideration factors like price index, cost of living, wage structure prevailing in the State or could have also taken help of the minimum-wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. In the case at hand, there is no material to suggest, wage rate of Unskilled/Skilled Labourer prevailing on the date of accident, at the place of residence of the deceased and therefore, I find it appropriate to take into consideration minimum-wages fixed by the competent authority fixed for the period from 01.10.2017 to 31.03.2018 for the Unskilled Labourer of ‘C’ zone areas as Rs. 7,800/- per month. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the income of the deceased is determined as Rs. 7,800/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 5 9. The learned Claims Tribunal considered age of the deceased to be 26 years and considering number of claimants/dependents to be four, have rightly applied the deduction of 1/4th towards the personal and living expenses, applied multiplier of 17 and have also rightly added 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects which is in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 10. Further, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded amount of compensation of Rs. 15,000/- under the head of loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium to Claimant No. 1 (Widow) as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). However, the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards the loss of consortium to the Applicants No. 2 to 4. The award of consortium is further clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 130. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the types of consortium and held that widow/widower is entitled for spousal consortium, children are entitled for parental consortium and parents are entitled for filial consortium. In the case at hand, the Appellants/Claimants No. 2 to 4 are parents and child of the deceased and therefore, they are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of filial and parental consortium respectively. It is ordered accordingly. 6 11.For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants. 12. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.7,800/- and since at the time of death, the deceased was 26 years old, therefore, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the income of deceased is required to be enhanced by 40% towards future prospects, which comes to Rs. 10,920/- (7800+3120). Thus annual income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the compensation comes to Rs.1,31,040/- (10,920 x 12). Out of this amount, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and after deducting 1/4th of the annual income, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.98,280/- (1,31,040 – 32,760). By applying multiplier of 17, as applied by the Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency, total loss of dependency would come to Rs.16,70,760/- (98,280 x 17). Besides this, Appellants No. 2 to 4 are entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards parental and filial consortium. Apart from the above, the applicants/claimants will also be entitled for the medical expenses of Rs. 4,32,122/- as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Pranay Sethi (Supra) has observed that there shall be increase of 10% on the amount of compensation awarded under the other conventional heads and therefore, the amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate is to be increased by 10%. It is ordered accordingly. 14. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.22,67,882/- (16,70,760 + 44,000 + 44,000 + 44,000 + 40,000 + 16,500 + 16,500 + 7 4,32,122). This enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 15. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants No. 1 to 4 as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above.
Decision
16. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 17. Certified copy as per rules. Dey Sd/-/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge