Chattisgarh High Court
Manrakhan And Anr vs Tikeshwar @ Tikesh And Ors on 4 May, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 535 of 2015
1. Manrakhan, S/o Bhawar Lal Jain, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village
Chandi, Tahsil- Abhanpur- District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Father)
2. Smt. Jashoda, W/o Marakhan, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village
Chandi, Tahsil- Abhanpur- District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Mother)
---- Appellants/Claimants
Versus
1. Tikeshwar @ Tikesh, S/o Late Bhagwani, Aged About 23 Years,
Caste - Dhruw, R/o Village Dabrapara Sarojani Chouk, Tahsil
Kurud Distt.- Dhamtari, Chhhattisgarh. (Driver of the offending
vehicle Car No.C.G.10/E.Q/7110).
2. Prashant, S/o Premshankar, Caste - Patanwar, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Village in Front of Satya Service Sarkanda, Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh. (Owner of the offending vehicle Car No.C.G.10/E.Q/
7110).
3. The National Insurance Company Limited Through
Manager/Mandal Office, 1 Flor Naveen Bazar Fool Chouk G.E.
Road, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of the
offending vehicle Car No.C.G.10/E.Q/7110). Policy
No.35101031126131624044, Date of Period 28/06/2012 to
27/06/2013.
4. Smt. Saraswati Bai, W/o Late Domar Singh, Aged About 25 Years,
Caste - Sahu, R/o Village Ghuranwagaon (Bhathapara), Thana-
Kurud Distt.- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh,
---- Respondents (Non-applicants)
_____________________________________________________________
For Appellants/Claimants : Shri A.L. Singroul, Advocate.
For Respondent No.3 : Shri Anil Gulati, Advocate.
_____________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Order On Board
04/05/2022
1. Being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 05.02.2015
passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari, (C.G.) in Claim Case No.66/2014,
the appellants/claimants (parents of the deceased) have filed
this appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal.
2. Facts
of the case are that, the appellants/claimants (parents and
widow of the deceased) have filed an application under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act pleading inter-alia that on
19.12.2012, respondent No.1, while driving the car vehicle
bearing registration No.CG 10 EQ 7110 in a rash and negligent
manner, dashed Domar Singh (deceased) who was riding
motorcycle, due to which he sustained grievous injury and during
course of his treatment, he died. Prior to the accident, he was
working as mason (Rajmistry) and used to earn Rs.7,500 per
month. Under various heads, the claimants have claimed total
compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.
3. Respondent No.1 & 2 are the driver and owner of the offending
vehicle respectively. In their reply, they have pleaded that
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
deceased. At the time of accident, the driver of the offending
vehicle was holding valid and effective license and also the said
vehicle was duly insured by the Insurance company i.e.
respondent No.3. Therefore, if any liability arises for
compensation, it should be fastened on the insurance company.
4. The insurance company filed its written statement and pleaded
that offending vehicle Car was driven in breach of terms and
condition of the insurance policy.
5. The Tribunal, after recording evidence of the parties and after
hearing counsel for the parties, vide impugned award dated
05.02.2015 granted a compensation of Rs.4,09,000/- in favour of
the appellants/claimants i.e. parents of the deceased and
respondent No.4 i.e. widow of the deceased.
6. Shri A.L. Singroul, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants
submits that while determining the amount of compensation, the
Tribunal has committed an illegality in assessing the income of
the deceased only to the extent of Rs.3,000/- per month. As the
deceased was working as a mason (Rajmistry), the amount of
compensation should have assessed in a proper manner. He
further submits that learned Tribunal has not considered the
future prospects of the deceased's income. It is further argued
that learned Tribunal has awarded total Rs.25,000/- in the
conventional head which should have suitably enhanced.
7. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.3/National
Insurance Company opposed the above arguments advanced by
the counsel for the appellants/claimants. Reliance has been
placed on a judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case
of (Sanjay Kumar v. Ashok Kumar and Another) 2014 (5) SCC
330.
8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the record of the Tribunal including the evidence
adduced by the parties minutely.
9. From perusal of the evidence on record, it appears that the
amount of compensation as determined by the Tribunal while
assessing the monthly income of the deceased to the tune of
Rs.3,000/- per month even without considering the future
prospects of his income is unjustified and deserves to be
modified.
10. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as a
mason and getting monthly income of Rs.7,500/- but, in this
regard, there is no documentary evidence produced by the
claimants. There is no dispute on the point that the deceased was
working as a mason (Rajmistry). Therefore, the claimants are
entitled to get compensation on the basis of wages of the
deceased for unskilled worker as he was found to be engaged in
mason work. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar
(supra) helds :-
9......In our considered view, the appellant is
entitled to be awarded compensation based on the
wages for a skilled worker, as he is an embroiderer
and the same cannot be considered as an unskilled
work. The minimum wages in Delhi for a skilled
worker as on 1-8-2005 was Rs.3589.90 per month.
10.Thus, in the present case, a monthly income of
Rs.4500 as claimed by the appellant for his work
as an embroiderer is reflective of ground realities
and is not exorbitant by any standard and in the
interest of justice, we should accept his claim.
Further, he was also not cross-examined on the
aspect of the nature of his work as an embroiderer
and both the Tribunal and the High Court have
erred in holding that the appellant's work was of an
unskilled nature.
11. Based on the aforesaid principle, it would thus be appreciated to
consider the deceased's income as an unskilled worker, as
provided in the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. As the alleged
incident occurred on 19.12.2012, it would be therefore,
appropriate to consider the monthly income of the deceased to a
tune of Rs.4,993. In round figures, his monthly income can be
assessed as Rs.5,000/-, yearly Rs.60,000/- (5,000x12=60,000),
prevailing at the relevant point of time as per the notification
issued by the prescribed authority under the said Minimum
Wages Act, 1948.
12. With regard to the future prospects, the Tribunal has not
awarded any amount. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in (2017) 16 SCC 680 (National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi, an addition of 40% of established income should be
added. Annual income of the deceased was Rs.60,000/- and 40%
of 60,000/- is 24,000/- therefore, annual income of the deceased
becomes 84,000/- (60,000+24,000). Deduction towards personal
and living expenses i.e. 1/3 deduction from the total annual
income is Rs.28,000/-. Thus, the remaining amount after
deduction of 1/3 of total annual income becomes Rs.56,000/-
(Rs.84,000-28,000).
13. So far as the age of the deceased is concerned, on perusal of the
pleadings of the claimants and from the post-mortem report of
the deceased, it appears that deceased was aged about 35 years.
Looking to the age of the deceased, the Tribunal has applied
multiplier of 16, which is in accordance with law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2009) 6 SCC 121 (Sarla Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation) and requires no interference. After
applying multiplier of 16, the compensation amount becomes
Rs.8,96,000/- (Rs.56,000 x 16).
14. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/-, Rs.5,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and
Rs.5,000/- under the head of loss of estate, loss of consortium,
loss of love and affection and for funeral expenses respectively,
which are not in accordance with law laid down by the Supreme
Court in Pranay Sethi case (supra) and Magma General Insurance
Company Limited v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130. As held by
Hon'ble Supreme Court, parents and widow of the deceased are
entitled to be awarded for loss of consortium under the head of
filial and spousal consortium i.e. Rs.40,000/- each. They are also
entitled to get Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- under the head of
funeral expenses and loss of estate respectively. The award
thereunder should be as follows: (I) under the head of loss of
estate Rs.15,000/-, (ii) under the head of spouse consortium
Rs.40,000/-, (iii) under the head of funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
and (iv) under the head of filial consortium to parents 40,000/-
each i.e. 40,000x2=Rs.80,000/-. Ordered accordingly.
15. As discussed above, now, I shall re-calculate the compensation
as follows:
S.No. Particulars Amount
(Rs.)
1. Annual Income Rs.5,000 x12= 60,000/-
2. Addition of 40% of Rs.60,000x40%= 84,000/-
established income Rs.24,000;
Rs.60,000+24,000=
3. 1/3rd deduction Rs.84,000x1/3= 56,000/-
towards personal Rs.28,000;
and living
expenses Rs.84,000-28,000=
applicable
5. Loss of income Rs.56,000x16= 8,96,000/-
6. For funeral 15,000/-
expenses
7. For loss of estate 15,000/-
8. For spouse 40,000/-
consortium to the
wife of deceased
9. For filial consortium Rs.40,000x2= 80,000/-
to the parents of
the deceased
Total Compensation = 10,46,000/-
(8,96,000+15,000+15,000+40,000+80,000)
16. Hence, now, the Appellants/claimants are entitled to get total
compensation of Rs.10,46,000/- instead of Rs.4,09,000- along
with interest of 6% per annum from the date of submission of the
claim petition before the Tribunal till realisation. Ordered
accordingly.
17. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed and the impugned
award is modified to the extent indicated above. Rest of the
impugned award shall remain intact.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge
Prakash
