1 - Jitendra Soni S/o Late Shri Mahendra Soni Aged About 22 Years 2 v. 1 - Branch Manager I. C. I. C. Lombard
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:25570 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 22 of 2019 1 - Jitendra Soni S/o Late Shri Mahendra Soni Aged About 22 Years 2 - Sangeeta Soni D/o Late Shri Mahendra Soni Aged About 19 Years 3 - Tetari Devi Soni W/o Late Shri Mahendra Soni Aged About 43 Years 4 - Nagendra Soni S/o Late Shri Mahendra Soni Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Tetari Devi, W/o Mahendra Soni, All are R/o Village Ward No. 10, Jail Para, Surajpur, Police Station Tahsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Branch Manager I. C. I. C. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited
Legal Reasoning
Office Vinay Bhawan, First Floor, Devendra Nagar, Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Satish Tiwari S/o Krishna Kumar Tiwari Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Satipara, Ambikapur, P. S. Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Gangotri Tiwari W/o Krishna Kumar Tiwari R/o Village Satipara Ambikapur, P. S. Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ….Respondents For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 19/06/2025 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 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surjapur, District – Surajpur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 17.09.2018 passed in Claim Case No.109/2017 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.7,28,125/- 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.38,00,000/- under different heads on account of the death of Mahendra Soni, who died in the road accident, pleading therein that on 28.06.2017 Mahendra Singh after selling ‘gram’ at Surajpur Bus Stand, was returning with his cart along the side of the road. At that time, Respondent No. 1, who was driving the offending vehicle bearing registration number CG-15-DC-6410, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed Mahendra Singh from behind and then ran over him with the vehicle, resulting in his death on the spot. At the time of accident, the deceased was 44 years of age and was doing the work of dairy and sale of gram and peanuts and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that due to her untimely death, the appellants/claimants suffered irreparable loss. 3. The non-applicants No.1 filed their reply to the claim application resisting the claim, pleaded that in order to get compensation in the 3 road accident, offending vehicle has been falsely implicated. Non- applicant No.1 denied the insurance of offending vehicle in absence of proof and verification. Non-applicants No. 2 and 3 also denied the allegations made in the claim and pleaded that Respondent No. 2 never drove the offending vehicle in a rash or negligent manner. The offending vehicle was duly insured with the non-applicant No.1. 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.7,28,125/- and fastened the liability upon non-applicant No.1/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 was doing the business of dairy farm, selling gram and peanut and earning Rs.20,000/- per month from the said business. He also contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded sufficient amount of compensation on other conventional head and prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 -Insurance Company opposes 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 4 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 28.06.2017. 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. However, in the facts of the case, 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 of 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. As per the notification issued by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, prevailing from 01.10.2017 till 31.03.2018 for unskilled labour has been fixed as Rs.7,930/- (minimum wages + dearness allowance i.e. Rs.7,800 + 130 = 7,930/-), therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the monthly income of the deceased is to be assessed as Rs.7,930/-. It is ordered accordingly. 9. The deceased on the date of accident was 48 years of age as mentioned in the postmortem report, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal justified in adding 25% of the assessed income towards future prospects, which is in consonance with the decision of of Hon'ble 5 Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 10. Learned Claims Tribunal has rightly applied the deduction of 1/4 towards personal living expenses as there are four claimants and application of multiplier of 13 by the learned Claims Tribunal 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, 11. The learned Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and for funeral expenses and further has awarded Rs.40,000/- only towards loss of consortium to the appellant No.3/widow however, failed to award any amount towards loss of consortium to the appellants No.1, 2 and 4. The 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. The appellants No.1, 2 and 4 are being children of the deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium and appellant No.3 being the wife of the deceased is entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium. It is ordered accordingly. 12. On the basis of above, the compensation calculated by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- 6 SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Annual income : 7,930 x 12 = 95,160.00 2. Addition of 25% towards future : 95,160.00 + 23,790.00 = 1,18,950.00 prospects 3. 1/4 deduction towards personal : 1,18,950.00 – 29,737.00= 89,213.00 expenses 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 13 5. For loss of parental and spousal consortium to the appellants No.1 to 4 Rs.40,000/- each (40,000 x 4) : 89,213 x 13 = 11,59,769.00 : 1,60,000.00 6. For funeral expenses 7. For loss of estate Grand Total : : : 15,000.00 15,000.00 13,49,769.00 13.
Decision
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.13,49,769.00. Any amount paid to the appellants as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 14. 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