Edelweiss General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Mr. Prabhat Pande, learned counsel for the appellant.

Brief facts of the case, as per record, are that on 11.01.2023 at about 10:00 P.M., the deceased Rajendra Ram, aged 53 years, was travelling along with a cow and a calf in the Pickup No. UK03 CA 1653 from Village Pati to Village Jakh, Near Kimtoli, about one 1 kilometre before Khalgada, the vehicle slipped into a deep ravine. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and was taken to District Hospital, Lohaghat, where he was declared dead. The claimants filed a petition seeking compensation of ₹32,70,000/-.

4. The parties filed oral and documentary evidence including the copy of Adhaar Card of the deceased, copy of family register, certified copy of G.D., copy of death certificate and copy of post-mortem report etc. On behalf of the Insurance Company in documentary evidence the copy of registration certificate of vehicle no.UK 03CA-1653, fitness certificate, copy of tax certificate, copy of pollution certificate of the vehicle, thereafter, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i) Whether on 11.01.2023, Rajendra Ram (deceased) was travelling in the vehicle of Opposite Party No.1 Vikas Singh Patni bearing No. UK 03 CA-1653 (pick-up) from Pati to his home in Village Jakh carrying a cow and a calf from his relatives for his own rearing. When the vehicle reached Kimtoli about 1 kilometer before Khalgada between Khalgada and Kimtoli on the Lohaghat Pulla Motorway around 10:00 P.M., driver/opponent No.1 caused the vehicle to crash due to rash and negligent driving and the vehicle crashed into a ditch. Rajendra Ram, who was carrying his own cargo, the cow and calf sustained serious and fatal injuries. With the help of villagers the rescue team and police, the deceased was brought to the Lohaghat Dub-District Hopsital in a private vehicle, where doctors declared him dead on arrival? 2 ii) Whether on 11.01.2023, the deceased Rajendra Ram was travelling in the pick-up vehicle No. UK- 03-CA-1653 of Opposite Party No.1 (Vikas Singh Patni) from Pati to Village Jakh, carrying his own cow and calf, and whether the vehicle, driven rashly and negligently by Opposite Party No.2, met with an accident near Kimtoli at about 10:00 P.M., resulting in the vehicle falling into a ditch and causing fatal injuries to the deceased, who was declared dead on arrival at the Lohaghat Sub- District Hospital. iii) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Opposite Party No.2, and if so, what were the consequences thereof? iv) Whether Opposite Party No.2, the driver of the vehicle, was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and was driving in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act, and if so, what is its legal effect? v) Whether there was any breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the vehicle owner. vi) Whether the vehicle was duly and effectively insured with Edelweiss General Insurance Company Ltd. for unlimited third-party liability on the date, time, and place of the accident. vii) Whether the claimants are entitled compensation for the death of Rajendra Ram in the said accident, and if so, from whom and to what amount.

5. After considering the pleadings and evidence decided the issues, so framed, in detailed and passed the aforesaid impugned order. 3

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal committed a manifest error as the Tribunal without considering the facts and evidence of the case has passed the impugned award; that, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration that the alleged accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving; rather, the vehicle fell into the ravine while avoiding a boulder; that, no evidence was produced that a cow and calf were recovered from the accident site. He would further submit that learned Tribunal ignored ocular testimony of PW-2; that, learned Tribunal wrongly assessed notional income as ₹15,000/- per month without proof, despite Government notification fixing notional income at ₹8,331/-; that, Tribunal erred in granting 15% future prospects instead of 10% applicable for a self-employed person above 50 years; that, the deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenses was erroneous as the deceased had five dependents; deduction should have been 1/4th; that, the loss of consortium was wrongly given in higher side to tune of ₹1,00,000/-, therefore, the impugned award is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants supported the award but fairly conceded that notional income should have been taken as ₹8,331/- in absence of proof; that, the deduction for personal expenses should have been 1/4th (five dependents); that, under the head of loss of consortium should be granted at ₹40,000/- per dependant as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 4 SCC 680, not ₹20,000/-.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

9. Upon perusal of the record, it would reveal that the numbers of dependents of the deceased are five, therefore, deduction should be 1/4. There is no documentary proof of income was filed by the claimants in the claim petition; therefore, income should be fixed as per Government Notification at ₹8,331/- per month. The compensation under the head of loss of consortium must be awarded at ₹40,000/- per dependant as per the settled law passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra).

10. Thus, the Tribunal’s computation under the aforesaid head requires modification. On Re- calculation, the notional monthly income of the deceased is assessed at ₹8,331/-. By adding 10% towards future prospects, an amount of ₹833/- is added, thereby enhancing the total monthly income to ₹9,164/-. Since the deceased had five dependents, a deduction of one-fourth (1/4th) is to be made towards personal and living expenses. One-fourth of ₹9,164/- comes to ₹2,291/-. Thus, the monthly contribution of the deceased towards the family is assessed at ₹9,164 – ₹2,291 = ₹6,873/-.

11. For calculating annual dependency, the monthly contribution of ₹6,873/- is multiplied by 12, which yields ₹82,476/-. Applying the multiplier of 11, considering the age of the deceased as 53 years, the total loss of dependency comes to ₹82,476 × 11 = ₹9,07,236/-. Under the conventional heads as 5 laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case, a sum of ₹40,000/- per dependent is awarded towards loss of consortium. For five dependents, this comes to ₹2,00,000/-. Additionally, ₹15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate and ₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses.

12. Accordingly, the total compensation payable is computed ₹9,07,236/- towards loss of dependency, ₹2,00,000/- towards consortium, ₹15,000/- towards loss of estate, and ₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses. The total amount of just compensation thus comes to ₹11,37,236/-.

13. Accordingly, the judgment and award dated

18.09.2024 passed by the learned M.A.C.T./District Judge, Champawat in M.A.C.P. No. 13 of 2023 is modified, and the claimants/respondents shall now be entitled to a total compensation of ₹11,37,236/- in place of ₹13,13,500/-. The amount shall carry the same rate of interest as awarded by the Tribunal.

14. The appeal from order is, accordingly, disposed of.

15. There shall be no order as to costs. Mamta (ALOK MAHRA, J.)

13.11.2025 6