Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Parwati vs Ranbaj Khan on 4 May, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 1175 of 2015
1. Smt. Parwati, W/o Rohit Kumar Tandon, Aged About 29 Years, R/
o Village Tarri, Post Tarri, Police Station and Tahsil Gurur, District
Balod, Chhattisgarh.
2. Ku. Khileshwari, D/o Rohit Kumar Tandon, Aged About 11 Years
(Minor), Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Parwati Tandon,
R/o Village Tarri, Post Tarri, Police Station And Tahsil Gurur,
District Balod, Chhattisgarh.
3. Ku. Omlata, D/o Rohit Kumar Tandon, Aged About 9 Years
(Minor), Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Parwati Tandon,
R/o Village Tarri, Post Tarri, Police Station And Tahsil Gurur,
District Balod, Chhattisgarh.
4. Ku. Neelam, D/o Rohit Kumar Tandon, Aged About 7 Years
(Minor), Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Parwati Tandon,
R/o Village Tarri, Post Tarri, Police Station And Tahsil Gurur,
District Balod, Chhattisgarh.
5. Ku. Jiteshwari, D/o Rohit Kumar Tandon, Aged About 5 Years
(Minor), Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Parwati Tandon,
R/o Village Tarri, Post Tarri, Police Station And Tahsil Gurur,
District Balod, Chhattisgarh.
6. Vedprakash, S/o Rohit Kumar Tandon Aged About 3 Years
(Minor), Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Parwati Tandon,
R/o Village Tarri, Post Tarri, Police Station And Tahsil Gurur,
District Balod, Chhattisgarh.
7. Mansharam Tandon, S/o Baula Tandon, Aged About 58 Years, R/o
Village Tarri, Post Tarri, Police Station And Tahsil Gurur, District
Balod, Chhattisgarh.
8. Smt. Johatarin Bai, W/o Mansharam Tandon, Aged About 55
Years, R/o Village Tarri, Post Tarri, Police Station And Tahsil
Gurur, District Balod, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellants/(Claimants)
Versus
1. Ranbaj Khan, S/o Mehboob Khan, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Village Bharda, Police Station and Tahsil Gurur, District Balod
Chhattisgarh. (Driver of Alleged Vehicle Bearing Registration No.
C.G. - 04 H - 5290).
2. Asgar Khan, S/o Bisharad Khan, R/o Room No 2, Prem Park
Phase-2, Mahavir Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur
Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Alleged Vehicle Bearing Registration No.
C.G. - 04 H - 5290).
3. Chola Mandalam General Insurance Company Limited, Through
Branch Manager, Branch Office, Infront of L I C Office, Simiran
Tower Main Road, Pandri Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur,
Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Alleged Vehicle Bearing Registration
No. C.G. - 04 H - 5290).
---- Respondent (Non-applicants)
_____________________________________________________________
For Appellants/Claimants : Shri Anil Gulati, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 &2 : Shri Kalpesh Ruparel, Advocate.
For Respondent No.3 : Shri Ghanshyam Patel and Shri
Samrath Singh Marhas, Advocates.
_____________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Order On Board
04/05/2022
1. The Appellants/claimants have filed this appeal being aggrieved
by the impugned award dated 02.03.2015 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, District - Balod, (C.G.) in Claim
Case No.107/2014, whereby the Tribunal has granted award of
compensation of Rs.7,83,000/- at interest of 6% per annum from
the date of submission of the claim petition before the Tribunal.
2. As per the claim petition, on 21.05.2014, Rohit Kumar Tandon
(deceased) was going to his village on his motorcycle. On the
way, respondent No.1, who is the driver of the offending vehicle
bearing registration number CG 04 H 5290, driving in rash and
negligent manner dashed the motorcycle due to that Rohit
Kumar (deceased) sustained grievous injury and later on during
course of his treatment, died in the hospital.
Claimants/appellants have moved an application under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sought compensation of
Rs.35,64,000/-.
3. Respondent No.1 (driver) and Respondent No.2 (owner of
vehicle) opposed the claim petition. In the reply, they have
pleaded that the alleged incident occurred due to negligence of
the deceased himself. They further pleaded that the offending
vehicle was insured with Respondent No.3/Insurance Company,
therefore, any liability arises for compensation it should be
fastened on the insurance company.
4. Respondent No.3/Insurance company in its reply pleaded that
vehicle was plying against the terms and condition of the
insurance policy. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable
to pay any compensation.
5. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the Tribunal
awarded Rs.7,83,000/- in favour of the claimants.
6. With regard to the quantum of compensation, Learned Counsel
appearing for the Appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal
has not granted any award on the head of future prospects and
granted Rs.5,000/- to appellant No.1 for spousal consortium,
Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- on the head of
love and affection which should be suitably enhanced.
7. On the contrary, Learned Counsel for the Respondents opposed
the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the
Appellants/claimants.
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 the perusal of the evidence adduced by the claimants,
there is no dispute on the point that, at the time of accident, the
deceased was working under Nagar Panchayat, Gurur as a daily
wages employee and used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month. The
deceased was aged about 35 years and therefore, as observed by
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. Monthly income of the
deceased was Rs.5,000/- and 40% of 5,000/- is 2,000/-, total
7,000/- (5,000+2,000) therefore, annual income of the deceased
becomes 84,000/- (7,000 x 12). Deduction towards personal and
living expenses i.e. 1/5 deduction from the total annual income is
Rs.16,800/-. Thus, the remaining amount after deduction of 1/5 of
total annual income becomes Rs.67,200/- (Rs.84,000-16,800).
10. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned,
considering the pleadings of the parties, age of the deceased at
the time of accident was about 35 years. As the deceased was
aged about 35 years, looking to the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in (2009) 6 SCC 121 (Sarla Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation), Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 16
which requires no interference.
11. With regard to other conventional heads, the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.5,000/- for funeral
expenses and Rs.5,000/- in the head of love and affection.
12. In the light of judgment laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu
Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780, the claimant/appellant No.1 is
entitled to get Rs.40,000/- as spousal consortium,
claimants/appellant No.2,3,4,5 and 6 are entitled to get
Rs.40,000/- each as parental consortium i.e. Rs.40,000 x 5 =
Rs.2,00,000/-. Claimants/appellant No.7 & 8 i.e. parents of the
deceased who were dependent upon him are also entitled to get
filial consortium as Rs.40,000/- each i.e. Rs.40,000 x 2 =
Rs.80,000/-. Apart from that claimants are entitled to get
Rs.15,000/- as loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- as funeral expenses.
Ordered accordingly.
13. On the basis of above discussion, I shall now recalculate the
amount of compensation as under :
S.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.)
1. Annual Income Rs.5,000 x12 60,000/-
2. Income after addition of Rs.60,000x40%= Rs.24,000; 84,000/-
established income Rs.60,000+24,000=
3. Income after 1/5th Rs.84,000x1/5= Rs.16,800; 67,200/-
deduction towards Rs.84,000-16,800=
personal and living
expenses
5. Loss of income Rs.67,200x16= 10,75,200/-
6. Addition of funeral 15,000/-
expenses
7. Addition of loss of estate 15,000/-
8. Addition of spouse 40,000/-
consortium
9. Addition of parental Rs.40,000x5= 2,00,000/-
consortium
10. Addition of filial Rs.40,000x2= 80,000/-
consortium
Total Compensation = 14,25,200/-
(10,75,200+15,000+15,000+40,000+2,00,000+80,0000)
14. Hence, now, the Appellants/claimants are entitled to get total
compensation of Rs.14,25,200/- instead of Rs.7,83,000/- along
with interest of 6% per annum from the date of submission of the
claim petition before the Tribunal till realisation. Ordered
accordingly.
15. 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
