Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Sangeeta Sahu vs Mohan Singh Patel on 22 February, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MAC No. 779 of 2018
Judgment reserved on : 17/11/2022
Judgment pronounced on : 22/02/2023
1. Smt. Sangeeta Sahu, Wd/o Late Biharilal Sahu, Aged About 26
Years,
2. Miss Aarushi Sahu, D/o Late Biharilal Sahu, Aged About 6 Years,
Minor Represented Through Natural Guardian Smt. Sangeeta
Sahu (Mother)
3. Smt. Phoolkunwar Sahu, W/o Bharatram Sahu, Aged About 60
Years,
All are R/o Village Udakuda Tahsil Charama District North Bastar
Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
4. Deleted (Bharatram Sahu) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 21-
03-2022
---- Appellants
Versus
1. Mohan Singh Patel, S/o Bhuwal Singh Patel, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Parpa Naka P.S. Bodhghat Jagdalpur District Bastar,
Chhattisgarh (Driver of The Vehicle)
2. Bhuwal Singh Patel, S/o Sukdev Singh Patel, R/o Gurugovind
Singh Ward Tahsil Jagdalpur District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh
(Owner of The Vehicle)
3. The Branch Manager, The Cholamandalam General Insurance
Co. Ltd. Branch Office Hiduja Complex Shop No.22 New Paras
Nagar Chowk Near Railway Line Raipur District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh (Insurer)
---- Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. Praveen Tulsyan, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Samrath Singh Marhas, Advocate
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
CAV Judgment
1. Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173(2)
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988')
2
seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.) North Bastar,
Kanker (C.G.) in Claim Case No.20/2017 awarding a
compensation of Rs.6,73,750/- with interest @ 7% per annum, in
favour of the appellants/claimants.
2. Facts
relevant for disposal of this appeal, in brief, are that on
21.02.2017, deceased Biharilal Sahu along with his friend
Atmaram Tandiya was going from Kanker to his home village
Udkuda by his motorcycle. At around 7.00 P.M., near Dhaba 786,
a truck bearing registration No. C.G.17-H-1133 which was being
driven by respondent No.1 was parked by him negligently in the
middle of the road without keeping the indicator on in violation of
the traffic rules. Due to said parking, deceased Biharilal Sahu
collided with the said truck and suffered serious injuries and died
on the spot. Accident was reported to the Police Station- Kanker
based upon which crime bearing No.70/2017 under sections
337, 304A of IPC was registered against respondent No.1-driver.
3. On account of aforesaid accident, the appellants/claimants
instituted a claim petition under sections 166 (1) & 140(1) of the
Act of 1988 by submitting inter alia that at the time of the
accident, the deceased, a 30 years old, was a 'Mason (Raj
Mistri)' by profession and used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month,
and thus, total amount of compensation to the tune of
Rs.25,46,000/- was claimed under various heads. However, the
Claims Tribunal considering the pleadings of the respective
parties and the evidence adduced in support thereof, by the
impugned award granted compensation to the claimants as
mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the
impugned award by the Claims Tribunal is bad in law, perverse,
thus liable to be modified and enhanced. He further submits that
the learned Claims tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of
deceased as Rs. 3750/- per month contrary to evidence adduced
before the learned tribunal as deceased was doing the work of
mason and he was getting Rs.8,000/- per month and the
accident took place in the year 2017 and for that year the
minimum wages has been fixed by the State Government is
Rs.250/- P.D. It is further submitted that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be
enhanced suitably. Reliance has been placed on the judgment
rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of New India
Assurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Somwati in AIRONLINE
2020 SC 717:: (2020) ACJ 2321, United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur in AIRONLINE
2020 SC 620, Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu
Ram in AIRONLINE 2018 SC 189 and this Court's order dated
09.06.2021 passed in MCC No. 256/2021 (Smt. Laxmi Bai &
others Vs. Bhushan Singh @ Tinku and others).
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3
supports the impugned award.
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on
record.
7. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the
compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be
just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of
the case. It should neither be a meager amount of
compensation, nor a Bonanza.
8. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of
Rs.6,73,750/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper
compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case.
9. In the instant case, learned Claims Tribunal calculated the
income of the deceased as Rs.3,750/- per month. The accident
took place on 21.02.2017 and at the time of accident, minimum
wages for the skilled worker was Rs. 6,648/- per month as fixed
by the State Government, therefore, the income of the deceased
assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.3750/- per month and annual
income as Rs. 45000/- in the year 2017 is certainly on the lower
side, it can only safely be taken a Rs.6,500/- per month.
10.Considering that the deceased Bihari Lal on the date of accident,
was aged about 30 years, keeping in view the nature of his job,
taking into consideration the Hon'ble judgment in 'NATIONAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., VS PRANAY SETHI AND
OTHERS', (2017) 16 SCC 680, there has to be 40% addition of
his income towards future prospects. Thus, after adding 40%
towards future prospects, the monthly income raises to
Rs.9,100/- i.e. Rs. 1,09,200/- per annum. Since the deceased
was survived by 4 dependents/claimants, though as per order
dated 21.03.2022 of this Court, appellant No.4 Bharatram Sahu
has died and his name has been deleted from the array of
appellant, after making ¼ deduction towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased i.e. Rs. 27,300/-, the annual loss of
dependency comes to Rs. 81,900/- In view of judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6
SCC 121 considering the age of the deceased, after applying
multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency comes to
Rs.13,92,300/-. This apart in view of decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in PRANAY SETHI (supra) the claimants are
also entitled for Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.
15,000/- for funeral expenses which was just and proper and
appellant/claimant No.1 is entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
consortium. In addition thereto, as per the Judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Magma General Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram And Others
reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, appellant/Claimant No.2, the
minor daughter of the deceased, is also entitled for Rs.40,000/-
towards loss of Parental Consortium and likewise
appellants/Claimants No. 3 & 4, parents of the deceased are
entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of Filial Consortium.
Thus, the claimants are held entitled for compensation in the
following manner:-
S.No. Particular Awarded by the Awarded by this
Tribunal Court
1. Monthly Income of the 3,750/- 6,500/-
deceased
2. Annual Income of the 45,000/- 78,000/-
deceased
3. Future prospect @ 40% Nil 31,200/-
4. Total Income 45,000/- 109,200/-
5. Personal Exp. (1/4th ) 11,250/- 27,300/-
6. Net Annual Income 33,750/- 81,900/-
6. Multiplier of 17 applied to 5,73,750/- 13,92,300/-
assess total loss of
dependency
7. Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 15,000/-
8. Loss of estate 15,000/- 15,000/-
9. For Spousal Consortium to 40,000/- 40,000/-
appellant No.1
10. Towards Parental Consortium 10,000/- 40,000/-
to appellant No.2
11. Towards Filial Consortium to 20,000/- 80,000/-
Total Compensation 6,73,750/- 15,82,300/-
11.For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The
amount of compensation of Rs.6,73,750/- awarded by the
Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 15,82,300/- Hence, after deducting
the amount of Rs. 6,73,750/-, the claimants are held entitled for
an additional amount of Rs. 9,08,550/- the additional amount
shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim
petition till realization. The impugned award stands modified to
the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
Judge
Ruchi
