Through His Legal Guardian grand father v. 1 - Paleshwar Nayak S/o Vidyadhar Nayak Aged About 4
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:15626 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 1 - Kavita Nayak D/o Paleshwar Nayak Aged About 18 Years MAC No. 142 of 2020 2 - Jai Kumar Nayak S/o Paleshwar Nayak Aged About 13 Years, Minor : Through His Legal Guardian grand father Appellant No. 3 Vidyadhar Nayak, 3 - Vidyadhar Nayak S/o Late Bhagwan Singh Nayak Aged About 63 Years All are R/o Village Chandan, Tahsil And District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. Present R/o C/o Dinesh Kumar S/o Govind Lal J-225, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. versus 1 - Paleshwar Nayak S/o Vidyadhar Nayak Aged About 43 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Chandan, Tahsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. (Non-Applicant No. 1) --- Appellants 2 - Gangadhar Patel S/o Pittbaso Patel Aged About 35 Years Occupation Surveyor, R/o Village Chandan, Tahsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. (Non-Applicant No.2) (Registered Owner Of Vehicle Motor Cycle Bearing Registration No. C G 04 / K C /2305) 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Madina Building, Kutchery Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle Motor Cycle Bearing Registration No. C G 04 / K C /2305) --- Respondents For Appellants For Respondent No.3
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate : Mr. Prasanjeet Dutta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 03/04/2025 1. Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.04.09 14:27:53 +0530 enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur (for short ‘the Claims 2 Tribunal’) vide award dated 06.07.2019 passed in Claim Case No.100/2018 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.3,50,000/- as compensation in a death case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 12.06.2017 deceased Smt. Lalita Nayak was traveling with her husband Paleshwar Nayak/respondent No.1 in motor cycle bearing registration No.C.G.-04-KC-2305 as pillion rider. Due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, the motor cycle fell into ditch, in the accident Lalita Nayak, sitting as pillion rider, fell down and became unconscious. She was admitted to Primary Health Center, Chandan and thereafter, she was referred to Mekahara Hospital, Raipur where during treatment she died on 15.06.2017. 3. Claimants/appellants being the legal heirs of the deceased, filed an application under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.12,75,000/- pleading therein that at the time of accident, deceased was aged about 35 years, working as labourer and was earning Rs.100/- to 150/- per day. It was also pleaded that the claimants/appellants were dependent upon the deceased. Claimants have also sought compensation under other conventional head like funeral expenses, for love and affection and for loss of estate etc. 4. Respondents No.1 and 2 jointly filed their reply denying the averments made in the application. It was pleaded that respondent No.1 was having valid and effective driving license and the vehicle was insured with respondent No.3, therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation, if any. 5. Non-applicant No.3-Insurer of offending vehicle, submitted reply to 3 claim application and denied the pleadings made therein. The occurrence of accident by respondent No.1 involving the offending vehicle and the death of Smt. Lalita Nayak in the said incident was also denied. Furthermore it is denied that the deceased was working as a labourer and earning between Rs. 100/- to 150/- per day. It is pleaded that the claim petition has been filed exaggerating the amount of compensation. 6. Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, the learned Claims Tribunal held that Smt. Lalita Nayak died as a result of the accident caused by respondent No.1 with the offending vehicle. Breach of Policy condition was not found to be proved. Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation. 7. Learned counsel for appellant submits that Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation. It is submitted that learned Claims Tribunal failed to consider the evidence brought on record regarding the income of deceased and erroneously assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.2500/- per month. 8. It is argued that at the time of the incident, deceased was 35 years old and according to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, multiplier of 17 should have been applied instead of 16 for the age group between 30 but not exceeding to 35 years. He prays that the amount of compensation be suitably modified. 9. Learned counsel for respondents opposes the submission of learned 4 counsel for appellant. The deduction and multiplier are rightly applied by the Claims Tribunal. It is contended that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and for loss of estate as the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, therefore, the compensation on other conventional heads should have been awarded strictly in accordance with the scheduled as provided under Section 163A of the Act, 1988. 10. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the impugned award. 11. As there is no challenge to the impugned award on the ground of maintainability of claim petition, therefore, this Court is not going to this aspect and only considering this appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation in the given facts of the case. 12. So far as the submission with respect to income of the deceased is concerned, the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.2,500/- per month. It is pleaded and stated by the claimants that at the time of incident, deceased Smt. Lalita Nayak was 35 years age of healthy woman, was working as labourer and earning Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day, which do not appear to be exorbitant or inflated considering the fact that the accident had occurred in the year 2017. Therefore, considering the pleadings and the evidence brought on record, the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.3,000/- per month for calculating the compensation. Accordingly, the annual income of the deceased works out to Rs.36,000/-. 13. The age of the deceased is assessed by the Claims Tribunal is 35 5 years, which is not disputed by learned counsel for respondent/Insurance Company by way of filing appeal. In the Second Schedule, the multiplier of 17 is provided for the age group in between above 30 years but not exceeding 35 years. There is no categoric finding that the deceased was above 35 years of age and therefore, in the facts of the case, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 16 considering the age of deceased to be above 35 years of age but not exceeding 40 years. In absence of the categorical finding that the deceased was above 35 years of age, multiplier of 17 is to be applied considering the age of the deceased in between above 30 years and not exceeding 35 years. It is ordered accordingly. After applying the multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.6,12,000/-. There is no dispute with respect to deduction of 1/3 towards personal expenses. Accordingly after deduction of 1/3 i.e. Rs.2,04,000/- towards personal expenses, the annual loss of dependency works out to Rs.4,08,000/-. 14. With regard to the amount of Rs. 15,000/- each awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal for funeral expenses and loss of estate, it is submitted that the claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, compensation for conventional heads must be awarded strictly in accordance with the Second Schedule under Section 163A of the Act. In the Second Schedule under general damages, an amount of Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- for loss of estate is provided. As such, the award of Rs. 15,000/- each for funeral expenses and loss of estate by the learned 6 Claims Tribunal is erroneous. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.2,500/- is awarded towards funeral expenses and for loss of estate respectively. 15. On the basis of above, the compensation calculated by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- S.N. Head Amount. 1. 2. 3. Loss of income/dependency : Rs.4,08,000.00 For loss of estate : Rs. 2,500.00 For funeral expenses : Rs. 2,000.00 Total Compensation : Rs.4,12,000.00 16.
Decision
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellant shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,12,000.00. Any amount paid to the appellant 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. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Balram Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge