Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:31769 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2274 of 2019 1 - Kriparam Pater S/o Late Aktu Ram Pater Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Gotatola, House No 202, Ward No 10, Post And Tahsil Mohla, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh....(Claimant), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Komal Bai Pater W/o Kriparam Pater Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Gotatola , House No. 202, Ward No 10, Post And Tahsil Mohla, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh Versus ... Appellants 1 - Rohit Thapa S/o Raju Thapa Aged About 31 Years R/o Acc Chowk , Nandini Road, Ward No 15, Bhilai , District Durg Chhattisgarh ..(Driver Of Offending Vehicle Cg-07, L.W. 9963), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rajendra Kumar Soni S/o Late Hiraji Soni Aged About 39 Years R/o House No. 652, Street No. 7, Shanti Nagar, Khoka, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh...(Owner Of Offending Vehicle Cg-07, L.W. 9963), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, Kamthi Line , Rajnandgaon , District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh...(Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Cg-07, L.W. 9963), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate on behalf of Mr. G.P. Mathur, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge 09/07/2025 Order On Board 1. There is no representation on behalf of the Respondents No. 1 & 2, though served. SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is joint and several upon the Non- Applicants i.e. the driver, owner and the Insurance Company. The offending vehicle on the date of accident was insured with the Non- applicant No. 3, therefore, the first liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon the Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company. Hence, this appeal may be heard finally at the motion stage. 3. The submission of the counsel for the appellants is not opposed by the counsel for the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company.
Decision
4. In view of the above, this case is heard finally at the motion stage. 5. This appeal is filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 23.09.2019 passed by the First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 128/2018. 6. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 06.08.2018., when Dhanraj Patar (since deceased) was going Gotatola, District – Rajnandgaon from District – Durg on his motorcycle i.e. Pulsar bearing registration no. CG 08 AF 3239 and reached near Pulgaon, at that time, the offending motorcycle i.e. C.B.Z. bearing registration no. CG 07 LW 9963 which was being driven driven by the Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed Dhanraj Patar and caused accident. In the said accident, Dhanraj Patar suffered serious injuries and he succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Subsequent to the said accident, an FIR was registered bearing Crime No. 302/2018, P.S. Pulgaon, District - Durg for the offence punishable under Sections 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3 7. The appellants/claimants in the claim application have pleaded that the deceased was aged about 23 years, was giving tuition classes to students and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. Due to said accident, the appellants/claimants claimed Rs. 16,25,000/- towards compensation along with an interest of 9% per annum. 8. There was no representation on behalf of the Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 and they were proceeded ex parte. 9. The Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company opposing the pleadings made in the claim application have denied the fact that the offending vehicle was being owned and driven by the Non-Applicants No. 1 & 2 and pleaded that death of the deceased due to the accident caused by the offending vehicle is to be proved by the applicants/claimants. The Non-applicant No. 3 pleaded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself and also, Non-Applicant No. 1 was not possessing a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident, therefore, the Non-Applicant No. 3 is not liable to satisfy the award. 10. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the facts and evidence brought on record, held that death of deceased was on account of motor accidental injuries suffered by him. On the date of accident, the vehicle was insured by the Non-applicant No. 3 and therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants amounting to Rs. 6,10,000/-. 11.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of compensation assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/- only overlooking the date of accident, nature of occupation and income pleaded by the 4 claimants/applicants. He also contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded the compensation under the head of loss of future prospects and further, the amount of compensation awarded under the other conventional heads is not sufficient in the facts of the case. Hence, he prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded suitably. 12.On the other hand, learned counsel for the Non-applicant No. 3/Insurance Company opposes the submission of counsel for the appellants/claimants and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the facts and evidence available on record has awarded just and proper amount of compensation which does not call for any interference. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case. 14. It is not in dispute that the deceased aged about 23 years met with an accident and succumbed to the motor accidental injuries suffered by him. The claimants are parents of the deceased. Though, in the claim application they have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month by imparting tuition classes to the students, however, no admissible piece of evidence was brought on record. In this regard, claimants have even not placed any evidence before the learned Claims Tribunal about the educational qualification of the deceased. In absence of any admissible piece of evidence regarding the educational qualification of the deceased and also, regarding tuition classes of the deceased, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal justified in disbelieving the pleadings and the self-serving 5 statements/evidence of the claimants about the nature of occupation and his income. 15. The learned Claims Tribunal has rightly taken recourse to assess the income of the deceased treating him to be an Unskilled Labourer, however, fell into error in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/- per month only which is much less than what was notified by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The deceased was a resident of Rajnandgaon which is falling within the ‘B’ Zone area and according to the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the wages of the Unskilled Labourer is fixed as Rs. 8,400/- per month. Therefore, taking note of the notification issued by the competent authority, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased as Rs. 8,400/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 16. Admittedly, on the date of accident, the deceased was 23 years of age, however, the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of future prospects. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has observed that where the deceased was less than 40 years of age and not in permanent employment, there shall be addition of 40% of the established income towards the loss of future prospects. In the aforementioned facts of the case, it is ordered that there shall be addition of 40% of the established income to the income of the deceased towards the loss of future prospects. 17. The learned Claims Tribunal has rightly applied deduction of ½ towards the personal and living expenses and applied multiplier of 18 which 6 does not call for any interference. The leaned Claims Tribunal has awarded consolidated amount of Rs. 70,000/- towards the pains and sufferings, love and affection and future expenditures which is contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC.. According to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the claimants are entitled for Rs. 15,000/- towards the loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards the funeral expenses and Rs. 40,000/- towards the loss of consortium. 18. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nanu Ram (Supra) has explained the types of consortium and held that the there are three types of consortium i.e. spousal consortium for widow/widower, parental consortium to children and filial consortium to parents. In the case at hand, the appellants/claimants are parents of the deceased and therefore, they are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium (total Rs. 80,000/-) respectively. Apart from the above, the appellants/claimants would also be entitled for Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. It is ordered accordingly. 19. For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants. 20. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 8,400/- and since at the time of death, the deceased was 23 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 7 Rs.11760/- (8400+3360). Thus annual income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the compensation comes to Rs.1,41,120/- (11760 x 12). Out of this amount, ½ (half) is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and after deducting ½ (half) of the annual income, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.70,560/- (1,41,120 – 70,560). By applying multiplier of 18, as applied by the Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency, total loss of dependency would come to Rs.12,70,080/- (70,560 x 18). Besides this, Appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards parental consortium. Further, they are also entitled for Rs. 15,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 21. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.13,80,080/- (12,70,080 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000). The 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. 22. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants No. 1 to 2 as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. 23. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 24. Certified copy as per rules. Dey Sd/-d/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge