Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 / 6 2025:CGHC:35533 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2080 of 2019 PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 1. Sitalpatiya W/o Late Jawahir @ Chovariya Agariya Aged About 35 Years 2. Ajeet Kumar Yadav W/o Late Jawahir @ Chovariya Aged About 16 Years Now 19 Years 3. Sajit Agariya S/o Late Jawahir Agariya Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Sitalpatiya W/o Late Jawahir @ Chovariya Agariya. 4. Ku. Sanjita Agariya D/o Late Navdhari Agariya Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Sitalpatiya W/o Late Jawahir @ Chovariya Agariya. 5. Mahesh Agariya S/o Late Navdhari Agariya Aged About 60 Years All are R/o Village Sukhari Ward No 01, Post Sahpur, P.S. - Chando Tahsil - Samari Kushami , Distt . - Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants/ Applicants-Claimants versus 1. Nanhelal Khairwar S/o Bhagwati Khairwar Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Balrampur Ramanujganj - Balrampur Distt Bhainsamunda P.S. Chhattisgarh....(Driver) 2. Aashik Khan @ Ashif Khan S/o Sarphridin Khan Aged About 30 Years Occupation Owner Of Auto R/o Chetana P.S. - Garhwa Distt Garhwa Jharkhand Chhattisgarh Present Address Aashik Khan @ Ashif Khan R/o Village Maharajganj (Pahari Tola) Police Chowki Ganesh Mod P.S. Balrampur Distt Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh....(Owner) 3. The Royal Sundarm General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager Royal Sundarm General Insurance Company Ltd . Branch Office Shop No.37 A.C. Market 2nd Floor Main Road Ranchi Jharkhand And Branch Manager Royal Sundarm General, Insurance Company Ltd. Office No. 306 3rd Floor Inside Of Mova Bridge Raipur Chhattisgarh. ...(Insurer) ____________________________________________________________
Legal Reasoning
For Appellants : Ms. Aakancha Vishwakarma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate ---Respondents/ Non-applicants For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None, though served. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate 2 / 6 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 23/07/2025 1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the award dated 06.07.2019 passed by Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balrampur, Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 28/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 9,28,000/- as compensation in motor accidental death case. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 10.02.2018 when Jawahir Agariya along with his wife-Sitalpatiya and other persons was going to village Sukhri from village Turridih in an autorickshaw bearing number JH03-R-5401 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) owned by non-applicant No. 2 and driven by non-applicant No. 1, as soon as offending vehicle reached near village Navadihkala, non-applicant No.1 drove the vehicle rashly and negligently due to which it got overturned. In the accident, Jawahir suffered severe injuries over his head and other parts of body and succumbed to those injuries. Accident was reported to police station Balrampur, based on which Crime No. 31/2018 was registered against non-applicant No. 1, for alleged offence under Section 304-A of IPC. 3. 4. Applicants-claimants widow, children and parents of deceased- Jawahir Agariya, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 15,10,000/- on the basis of pleading made therein. Respondents No. 1, 2 & 3/ Non-applicants No. 1, 2 & 3 -driver, owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle filed their reply to the application, denying the facts pleaded therein. It is further pleaded that deceased died due to his own negligence by falling from the offending vehicle. 3 / 6 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased -Jawahir alias Chauvariya died because of grievous injuries suffered by him in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle driven by non- applicant No. 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved. Tribunal calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 9,28,000/- as total compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization and fastened first liability to satisfy the award upon non-applicant No. 3, being insurer. 6. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation as ₹ 9,28,000 by assessing income of deceased as only ₹ 6,000 per month, overlooking the date of accident as 10.02.2018 and age of deceased as 36 yeas only. She next contended that the Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager compensation under other conventional heads, had erroneously added 15% of the assessed income towards future prospects which in the facts of the case would have been 40% because on the date of accident deceased was below 40 years age. She also pointed out that there are five claimants including widow, children and father of deceased and therefore appropriate deduction would be 1/4instead of 1/3. 7. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 would submit that he is having instructions to appear in the case. He would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellants-claimants and would submit that as the claimants failed to prove income of deceased, Claims Tribunal justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. He submits that the award of compensation is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 4 / 6 9. It is not in dispute that the claimants in the claim application have pleaded the occupation of deceased to be labourer and earning ₹6,000, however could not able to substantiate the pleadings by producing clinching evidence before the Claims Tribunal and therefore Claims Tribunal justified in assessing income on notional basis, however, fell into error in not considering date of accident, age of deceased and wages or taken into consideration minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. As there is no suggestive piece of evidence of the wages of daily wage labourer prevailing within the area, where the deceased was resident of and working, I find it appropriate to assess the income of deceased by taking help of the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages for that period. Minimum wages for the period from 01.10.2017 to 31.03.2018 fixed for c-zone area was as ₹ 7,930 per month. Therefore, I find it appropriate to assess the income of deceased as ₹ 7,930/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has settled the issue with regard to award of future prospects and held that where the deceased was below 40 years and not in permanent employment, there shall be addition of 40%. Tribunal erroneously added 15% towards the future prospects. Therefore, it is directed that there shall be addition of 40% of the assessed income to the income of deceased towards future prospects. It is ordered accordingly. There are five claimants including widow, children and father of deceased. Age of father is shown as 60 years and therefore Claims Tribunal ought to have applied deduction of 1/4 as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, instead of 1/3 as applied by Tribunal. In the facts of the case, in light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra), I find it appropriate to apply deduction of 1/4. 5 / 6 11. Further perusal of award would show that the Claims Tribunal has awarded ₹ 15,000 towards funeral expenses, ₹ 35,000 towards love and affection and loss of estate and ₹ 50,000 has been awarded towards loss of consortium to appellant No. 1. In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) it is held that claimants would be entitled for ₹ 15,000 towards loss of estate, ₹ 15,000 towards funeral expenses and ₹ 40,000 is to be awarded towards loss of consortium to spouse. Claims Tribunal fell into error in not awarding compensation under the head of loss of consortium to children and father of deceased. Application of multiplier of 15 is correctly applied in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) as the deceased was held to be below 40 years of age. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, has further explained types of consortium to be awarded to claimants and held that apart from awarding loss of spousal consortium to widow/ husband, children and parents of the deceased will also be entitled for loss of consortium under the head of loss of parental consortium and loss of filial consortium respectively. In the case at hand, appellants No. 2, 3 & 4 are children and appellant No. 5 is father of deceased, therefore, they will also be entitled for loss of parental consortium and loss of filial consortium of ₹ 40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has further observed that compensation under the head of other conventional heads is to be enhanced by 10% after every three years. Therefore, amount of compensation under the heads of funeral expenses would be ₹ 16,500, loss of estate would be ₹ 16,500, and loss of consortium would be ₹ 44,000 each. 6 / 6 13. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires re-computation, which is as under. Compensation ₹ 14,98,770/- Particulars • Annual Loss of income/ dependency = ₹ 95,160/- (₹ 7930x12) • Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 40% (₹ 95,160 + 40% of ₹ 95,160 = ₹ 1,33,224) • Deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses (₹ 1,33,224 x 1/4= ₹ 33,306); ₹ 1,33,224 - ₹ 33,306 = ₹ 99,918/- • Multiplier of 15 ₹ 99,918 x 15 = ₹ 14,98,770/- Loss of Spousal Consortium to Appellant No. 1 Loss of parental consortium to Appellants No. 2 ₹ 44,000/- ₹ 1,76,000/- to 4; and Loss of Filial Consortium to Appellant No. 5 (₹ 44,000 each) Loss of estate Funeral Expenses Total ₹ 16,500/- ₹ 16,500/- ₹ 17,51,770/- 14. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 17,51,770/- instead of ₹ 9,28,000/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. • Any amount paid to the appellants-claimants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Rest of the conditions as imposed by the Claims Tribunal in the impugned award shall remain intact. 15.
Decision
In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. pwn Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge