Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:31493 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 1 - Bhuvneshwari Patel W/o Late Purushotam Aged About 29 Years MAC No. 1918 of 2019 2 - Ku. Himani D/o Late Purushotam Aged About 7 Years 3 - Ku. Nabya D/o Late Purushotam Aged About 5 Years 4 - Ku. Prachi D/o Late Purushotam Aged About 3 Years 5 - Somesh S/o Late Purushotam Aged About 1 Years No.2 to 5 are minors, through Legal Guardian Mother Bhuvneshari Patel . 6 - Chhammak Bai W/o Late Lal Sai Aged About 52 Years 7 - Ku. Rina D/o Late Lal Sai Aged About 22 Years 8 - Dileshwar Patel S/o Late Lal Sai Aged About 25 Years 9 - Hiradhar Patel S/o Late Lal Sai Aged About 19 Years All are by Caste - Marar, R/o Village Godihari, P.S. And Tahsil Dabhara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. versus --- Appellants 1 - Ramesh Kumar S/o Janulal R/o Plot No. 108, Vidyanagar, Saraswati Nagar, Athoda Layout, Near Ice Factory, Nagpur Maharastra . Pin 440009... (Driver). 2 - Gorakh Das Gatpayale C/o Sheikh Anwar, Sheikh Makbur House No. 208 , R/o Mahalgaon P.S. Kamti Nagpur Maharastra Pin - 441404 Owner. 3 - I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Raipur Chhattisgarh, Insurer. ….Respondents For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent No.1 and 2 : Mr. Vikash Pandey, Advocate BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.16 11:18:11 +0530 For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 09/07/2025 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 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, District – Janjgir- Champa (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 26.09.2019 passed in Claim Case No.32/2018 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.9,37,200/- 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.64,57,827/- under different heads against the death of Purshottam Patel, who died in a road accident, pleading therein that on 23.04.2018, at about 1:30 PM, Purshottam Patel and Mukesh were traveling on a motorcycle going to attend a marriage ceremony of one of their relative. As they reached at Shriram Chowk, Kera, one truck bearing registration number MH-40-BG-6129 (hereinafter referred as offending truck), driven in a rash and negligent manner by Non-Applicant No. 1, collided with their motorcycle. As a result of the impact, both Purshottam Patel and Mukesh sustained severe head injuries and succumbed to the injuries. It was pleaded that on the date of accident deceased Purshottam was 31 years of age, was working as vegetable seller and earning Rs.18,333/- per month. The claimants were dependent upon him and due to untimely death of Purshottam they are facing great financial crises. 3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2 did not file reply and they were proceeded 3 ex-parte. Respondent No.3/Insurance company filed its reply to the application resisting the claim. It was pleaded that the accident occurred between two vehicles, however, owner and insurance company of the vehicle driven by deceased was not made as party in the application. At the time of accident, deceased was not having valid driving license and the accident was a result of self negligence of the deceased himself. Non-applicant No.1 was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle and the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of conditions of insurance policy without any valid permit. 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.9,37,200/- and fastened the liability upon non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company to indemnify the insured. 5. Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation. Income of the deceased is assessed on lower side overlooking the nature of occupation and income as pleaded in the claim application that the deceased on the date of accident was doing the work of vegetable seller as also the work of agriculture and was earning Rs.18,333/- per month. He also contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded sufficient amount of compensation on other conventional heads and prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposes 4 the submission of learned counsel for appellants. He submits that in absence of proof of nature of occupation and income of the deceased, learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing 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. It is not in dispute that accident is of 23.04.2018. Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month only, treating the nature of occupation of the deceased on the date of accident to be labourer. True it is that claimants could not able to prove the nature of employment as also the income of the deceased by producing clinching evidence. 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 23.04.2018. For assessing the income of the deceased on notional basis, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken 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. 9. In the case at hand, there is no suggesting piece of evidence to prove 5 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. 10. The deceased on the date of accident was 31 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. 11. Learned Claims Tribunal has rightly applied the deduction of 1/4 towards personal living expenses and multiplier of 16, which 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, 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), has quantified the amount of compensation to be awarded under the head loss of estate and funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/- each and Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium in a death case. Learned Claims Tribunal has though awarded Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate 6 and for funeral expenses, however, failed to award any amount towards loss of consortium to the appellants/claimants. 13. 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. Appellant No.1 being widow, appellants No.2 to 5 being children and appellant No.6 being mother of deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium. It is ordered accordingly. 14. On the basis of above, compensation awarded needs recomputation, which is 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. 1/4 deduction towards personal : 1,36,080.00 – 34,020.00 = 1,02,060.00 expenses 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 16 5. For loss of spousal, parental and filial consortium to the appellants No.1 to 6 of Rs.40,000/- each (Rs.40,000 x 6) : 1,02,060 x 16 = 16,32,960.00 : 2,40,000.00 6. For funeral expenses 7. For loss of estate Grand Total : : : 15,000.00 15,000.00 19,02,960.00 15.
Decision
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellant shall be 7 entitled for total compensation of Rs.19,02,960.00. 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. 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