Minabai vs Santosh Kumar Gupta
2022 Latest Caselaw 2685 Chatt

                                                            NAFR
       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                MAC No. 1191 of 2015

1. Minabai W/o Late Sunderlal Prajapati, Aged About 35 Years R/o
   Village Meduka, Thana Gaorela, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

2. Kumari Sayogita D/o Sunderlal Prajapati, Aged About 19 Years
   R/o Village Meduka, Thana Gaorela, District - Bilaspur
   Chhattisgarh.

3. Chudamani S/o Sunderlal Prajapati Aged About 17 Years Minor,
   Through Parental Mother Minabai Jaoje Sunder Prajapati, R/o
   Village Meduka, Thana Gaorela, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

4. Dileshwar S/o Sunderlal Prajapati Aged About 13 Years Minor,
   Through Parental Mother Minabai Jaoje Sunder Prajapati, R/o
   Village Meduka, Thana Gaorela, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

5. Bifaiya Bai W/o Mathuraprasad Prajapati, Aged About 55 Years
   R/o Village Meduka, Thana Gaorela, District - Bilaspur
   Chhattisgarh.

6. Mathura Prasad, S/o Gayadin Prajapati Aged About 62 Years R/o
   Village Meduka, Thana Gaorela, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

                                                    ---- Appellants

                            Versus

1. Santosh Kumar Gupta S/o Shivprasad Gupta, R/o Koldafai Near
   Khongapani Pandal Police Station Jhaganakhand, District Korea
   Chhattisgarh.

2. Prakash Agrawal S/o Shrawan Kumar Agrawal, R/o Ward No 2,
   Main Market, Pankha Dafai, Khongapani, Baikunthpur, District
   Korea Chhattisgarh.

3. Reliance General Insurance Company, National Corporate In
   Front Of Park Indian Motors, G. E. Road, Raipur
   Chhattisgarh......Insurer.

                                                 ---- Respondents

AND

MAC No. 326 of 2016

1. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Legal Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 5th Floor National Corporate Park, Opposite Maruti Business, G.E. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ............Insurer.

---- Appellant

Versus

1. Meena Bai W/o Sunderlal Prajapati, Aged About 35 Years R/o R/o Village Medhuka, P.S. Gourela, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Kumari Sanyogita D/o Sunderlal Prajapati, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Medhuka, P.S. Gourela, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Chudamani S/o Sunderlal Prajapati, Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Mother Meenabai W/o Sunderlal Prajapati, R/o Village Medhuka, P.S. Gourela, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Dileshwar S/o Sunderlal Prajapati, Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Mother Meenabai W/o Sunderlal Prajapati, R/o Village Medhuka, P.S. Gourela, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

5. Bifaiya Bai W/o Mathuraprasad Prajapati, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Medhuka, P.S. Gourela, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

6. Mathuraprasad S/o Gayadin Prajapati, Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Medhuka, P.S. Gourela, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ............Claimants.

7. Santosh Kumar Gupta S/o Shivprasad Gupta, R/o Koldafai Near Khongapali Pandal, P.S. Jhagarakhand, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh ............Driver.

8. Prakash Agrawal S/o Shrawan Kumar Agrawal, Ward No.2 Main Market Pankhadafai Khongapani, Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh ............Owner.

---- Respondents

_________________________________________________________ For Appellants (In MAC No.1191/2015) : Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate.

For Appellant (In MAC No.326/2016) : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondents (In MAC No.1191/2015) : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondents 1-6 (In MAC No.326/2016): Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order On Board

26/04/2022

1. Both the appeals have arisen out of same judgment dated 15.05.2015, passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur(C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'learned Tribunal') in MAC Case No. 03/2014, therefore, the same are deciding by this common judgment.

2. Vide judgment dated 15.05.2015, the Tribunal has passed an award of Rs. 18,51,108 in favour of the Claimants/Appellants in MAC No. 1191/2015 (hereinafter referred to as "Claimants'). The Claimants have preferred MAC No.1191/2015 for enhancement of compensation and Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Insurance Company') has preferred MAC No. 326/2016 for set aside the impugned award passed by the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 30.11.2013 at about 1 PM, the deceased Sundarlal was going to Pendra Road by his motorcycle, on the way at village Pipardol vehcile bearing Registration No. CG 16 D 1627 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') dashed his motorcycle and dragged him in a very rash and negligent manner due to that the deceased died on spot and his motorcycle was also got damaged. The offending vehicle was driven by Respondent No.1, it was owned by Respondent No.2 and it was insured by Respondent No.3 (in MAC No.1191/2015). Claimant No.1 is the wife of the deceased, Claimants No.2-4 are the children and Claimants no.5 & 6 are the parents of the deceased (in MAC No. 1191/2015). They moved an application for grant of compensation of Rs.57,00,000/- before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

4. Respondents No.1 & 2 who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, in their written statements have denied the averment made in the claim petition. They further stated that the offending vehicle was duly insured at the time of accident and the driver had possessed valid and effective driving license, therefore, the insurance company would be liable to pay compensation if any liability is fasten with.

5. The Insurance Company has also filed written statement and denied the averment made in the claim petition. It is alleged that it was the deceased himself who negligently driven his motorcycle, therefore, he himself is responsible for the accident. It is pleaded that at the time of accident, the deceased had not possessed valid and effective driving license. The registered owner and the insurer of the motorcycle were also not made party in the present cases. It is further pleaded that the motorcycle has been run in violation of insurance policy conditions.

6. Learned Tribunal after recording the evidence of parties and after hearing the counsels, vide impugned award dated 15.05.2015, partly allowed the claim petition and amount of Rs.18,51,108/- was passed.

7. The Claimants preferred this appeal (MAC No.1191/2015) on the ground that the impugned award is very low, learned Tribunal has granted only Rs. 1,05,000/- towards other conventional heads which is very lower side.

8. The Insurance Company preferred this appeal (MAC No.326/2016) on the ground that on the date of accident, the driver of the motorcycle was not possess valid and effective driving license even then learned Tribunal has fastened the liability on the part of Insurance Company. Without being any legal evidence on record, learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.10,659/- thus, committed a legal error. It is further submitted that the multiplier used by the Tribunal is also in a higher side.

9. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire material available on record with utmost circumspection.

10. One Maniram Choudhary (Appellant witness No.2) has been examined before the Claim Tribunal who deposed that on the date of incident, the accident was witnessed by him, he deposed that one vehicle rashly and negligently driven by its driver, dashed one motorcycle from behind due to that the driver of said motorcycle died on spot. On this point, his statement has not been duly rebutted during his cross-examination. Father of the deceased Mathura Prasad examined himself as Appellant Witness No.1. On perusal of statements of both the witnesses and the documents submitted by the Claimants, it is well established that due to rashly and negligently driven the offending vehicle by Respondent No.1, the deceased was died on spot.

11.According, to the case of Claimants, the deceased was working as Secretary in Gram Panchayat Ameratikra and getting monthly salary of Rs.10,659/-. In this regard, O.P. Sharma, (Appellant Witness No.3), C.E.O. of Janpad Panchayat Marwahi examined before the learned Tribunal, on the basis of his statement and the last pay certificate of the deceased i.e. Ex.P9, learned Tribunal rightly arrived on the conclusion that monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.10,659/-

12. With regard to the future prospects, in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:-

"While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

In the case in hand, the deceased was aged about 41 years, therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly added 30% amount as income of the deceased on the head of future prospects.

13. As there are six dependents, therefore, looking to the observation made by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, The learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses. As the deceased was aged about 41 years, therefore, multiplier of 14 which was used by the learned Tribunal is also in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court.

14.With regard to the other conventional heads, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses and also awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Claimant/Appellant No.1/wife of the deceased towards spousal consortium.

15. As observed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi and ors. (Supra), the Claimants are entitled to get compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate. Further, Claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is entitled to get Rs.40,000/- instead of Rs.1,00,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal towards spousal consortium, Claimants No.2-4 are entitled to get Rs.1,20,000 (40,000 x 3 = 1,20,000/- for three children) towards parental consortium and Claimants No.5 & 6 are entitled to get Rs.80,000/- (40,000 x 2 = 80,000/- for parents) towards filial consortium. Thus, the claimants are entitled to get Rs.2,70,000/- towards other conventional heads.

16. Now, the Claimants are entitled to get total compensation amount of Rs.20,16,108/- (17,46,108 as already awarded by the Tribunal in addition to Rs.2,70,000/- as observed by this Court), with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of submission of the application. Ordered Accordingly. The disbursement of the enhanced compensation among the parties shall liable as per the terms and conditions laid down in the impugned award.

17. With regard to the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company, there is no evidence available on record on the basis of which it can be said that by any manner the insured/owner of the offending vehicle(motorcycle) has breach the terms and conditions of insurance policy. Thus, I do not found any merit in the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company.

18.Resultantly, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is dismissed as no merit and the appeal preferred by the Appellants/Claimants is allowed in part to the above extent.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Shubham