Nafr High Court
Case Details
YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.07.25 11:08:23 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:34734 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1848 of 2018 1 - Dulourin Bai W/o Late Bhop Singh Bhaskar Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Sonpuri (Baki) Tahsil And District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kumari Kiran D/o Late Bhop Singh Bhaskar Aged About 13 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Dulourin Bai, R/o Village Sonpuri (Baki) Tahsil And District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Prem Kumar S/o Late Bhop Singh Bhaskar Aged About 11 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Dulorin Bai, R/o Village Sonpuri (Baki) Tahsil And District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ashin W/o Late Bedram Bhaskar Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Sonpuri (Baki) Tahsil And District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ---- (Claimants) versus ... Appellants 1 - Shiv Kumar Mahilong S/o Banwari Mahilong Aged About 49 Years R/o Padav Para Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ---(Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Bus C.G.10 G. 0648) 2 - Kishor Kumar S/o Ramnihora Chandrakar Aged About 43 Years R/o Village - Mahka Post Bagharra Tahsil Pandariya Mungeli, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ---(Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Bus C.G.10 G.0648) 3 - Ifko Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited Byapar Bihar Marg Sanjay Apartment Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.----(Insurer) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents 2 For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Shaleeni Jangde, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : None For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge 21.07.2025 Judgment on Board 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 20.08.2018 passed by the learned Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.12/2018 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimants. 2. Brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that, on 25.01.2018, Bhop Singh (since deceased) was returning to Village Sonpuri after ordering grocery at Mungeli on his motorcycle, when he reached near Village Baghamuda, at that relevant time, respondent No.1 while driving the Bus bearing registration No.CG- 10-G-0648 (in short ‘offending vehicle’) dashed the motorcycle from rear side, as a result of which, he fell down and succumbed to the injuries suffered by him on the spot. 3. The claimants being wife, children and mother of deceased Bhop Singh have filed a claim petition claiming Rs.43,00,000/- as compensation under various heads. 3 4. Respondents No.1 and 2/non-applicants No. 1 and 2 have filed their written statement before the learned Claims Tribunal and pleaded that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company, as such, the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation would be upon the Insurance Company. 5. The respondent No.3 filed its written statement in which it has denied the contents of the petition and further stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence as well as vehicle was not having valid permit, as such there was violation of breach of policy conditions and Insurance Company was not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 6. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, Claims Tribunal held that the deceased was aged about 32 years on the date of accident and earning Rs.4,500/- per month. While adding 40% towards future prospects, deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses and after applying the multiplier of 16, awarded an amount of Rs.9,07,200/- towards loss of dependecy. Learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs.70,000/- towards other conventional heads, as such awarded total compensation of Rs.9,77,200/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization and fastened the 4 liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the driver, owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. He further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in law in not awarding meagre amount towards loss of consortium. It has been contended that learned Claims Tribunal has failed to award the proper amount of compensation under the various heads and therefore, the award deserves to be altered in order to fulfill the needs of the claimants. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that on the date of accident, driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licnece as well as valid permit, as such, Insurance Company be exonerated to satisfy its liability to pay the amount of compensation. He further submits that after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Claims Tribunal has passed just compensation to the claimants, which needs no interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 10. Before the learned Claims Tribunal, claimants have pleaded income of deceased to Rs.15,000/- per month while doing the business of grocery, but has not produced any evidence with 5 respect to salary or income of deceased. The claimants have failed to prove income as pleaded in their claim application, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of case, income of deceased is to be assessed on notional basis. The date of accident was 25.01.2018, therefore, looking to minimum wages rate prevailing in the Districts and State, it will be proper to hold engagement of deceased in unskilled work and his income to be assessed to Rs.7,930/- per month. 11. The legal position now stands settled by virtue of the law declared by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transportation Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. It stands affirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157. Even though, it has been observed by the Claims Tribunal that the deceased was 32 years of age, there is no conclusive proof with regard to the age. Based on the available materials, the Court reckon the same as 32 years as contended by the claimants. In the instant case, since the accident occurred was in the year 2018, this Court has reckoned the income of deceased as Rs.7,930/- per month, i.e. Rs.95,160/- per annum. Going by the rulings rendered by the Apex Court as cited above, in the case of persons of less than 40 years of age without fixed income, 40% of the income has to be added for fixing the future prospects, which comes to Rs.1,33,224/- per annum. After deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses, annual income of deceased comes 6 to Rs.99,918/-. After applying the multiplier of 16, the loss of income of deceased comes to Rs.15,98,688/-. 12. The scope of 'consortium' has been subsequently explained by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130. It can be of three types; Parental consortium (payable to children because of the death of parents); Spousal consortium (payable to the surviving spouse because of the death of the partner) and Filial consortium (payable to the parents because of the death of children). This being the position, the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of consortium. Further, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is payable towards funeral expenses in view of the law declared in Pranay Sethi (supra). As per the decision rendered in Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants/claimants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Further, 10% enhancement in every three years is also required to be given in respect of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium. 13. On the basis of above recalculation, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Sl. No. 1. Head Calculation Awarded amount Income of deceased @ Rs.7,930/- per month Rs.95,160/- per annum 2. 40% of (1) above to 95,160 + 38,064 7 be added as future prospects = Rs.1,33,224/- 3. 1/4th of (2) deducted personal the as expenses of deceased 1,33,224 / 4 = Rs.33,306/- Rs.99,918/- 4. Compensation after 16 of multiplier applied 5. Towards estate loss of 6. Towards loss of consortium to all the three claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- 7. Funeral Expenses 99,918 x 16 Rs.15,98,668/- 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years 40,000 + 8,000 = 48,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years Total Compensation Awarded Rs.18,000/- Rs.1,44,000/- Rs.18,000/- Rs.17,78,688/- 14. In the said circumstance, the total compensation comes to Rs.17,78,688/-. After deducting Rs.9,77,200/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.8,01,488/-. 15.
Decision
In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein- above. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs.8,01,488/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of enhancement 8 of the award till its realization. The other conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 16. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the claimants as modified by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 17. Record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent. Yogesh Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge