Kashiram Sahu And Ors vs Jeevan Kumar Tandon And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 890 Chatt

                                   1

                                                                NAFR
          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                 Judgment reserved on : 10/11/2022
                 Judgment delivered on : 10/02/2023
                        MAC No. 464 of 2015
   1. Kashiram Sahu, aged about 42 years, son of Bhelaram Sahu,
   2. Vimla Bai Sahu, aged about 40 years, wife of Kashiram Sahu,
   3. Vinod Sahu, aged about 21 years, son of Kashiram Sahu,
   4. Sangeeta Sahu, daughter of Kashiram Sahu, aged about 14
       years, minor through legal guardian father Kashiram Sahu,
      All are resident of Village Ramhepur, Dhemrapara, Post, Police
      Station and Tahsil-Lormi, Distt. Mungeli (CG)
                                              ---- Appellants/claimants
                                 Versus
   1. Jeevan Kumar Tandon, aged about 33 years, son of Nevandas,
      resident of Sakti Nagar, Awaspara, Ameri, Tahsil and Distt.
      Bilaspur (CG), temporary address-Tarvarpur (Daihakapa),
      Chowki-Fasterpur, Tahsil and Distt. Mungeli (CG) (Driver of Bus
      No. CG 10 G 0695)
   2. Pushparaj Sharma son of Motilal Sharma, resident of Ravi
      Sadan Ashok Vihar, Phase-2, Science College Road,
      Bilaspur,Tahsil and Distt. Bilaspur (CG) temporary address-
      Deendayal Colony, Vyapar Vihar, Tahsil and Distt. Bilaspur (CG)
      (Owner of Bus No. CG 10 G 0695)
   3. Branch Manager, Ifco Tokio General Insurance Company
      Limited, Branch Manager, First Floor, Galaxy Whites, near ICICI
      Bank, Vyapar Vihar, beside Sanjay Apartment, Tahsil and Distt.
      Bilaspur (CG) (Insurer of Bus No. CG 10 G 0695)
                                                     ---- Respondents

For Appellants : Ms. Aastha Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Gautam Khetrapal, Adv.

For Respondents         :      None, though served.

For Respondent No.3     :      Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate

                 Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
                            C A V JUDGMENT

01. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under Section

173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 23.1.2015

passed by the III Additional Member to First Additional Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No.37/2014 awarding total

compensation of Rs.4,31,200/- to the claimants with interest @ 6% p.a.

from the date of claim petition till realization, fastening liability jointly

and severally on the insurer with driver and owner of the vehicle.

02. As per claim petition, Pramod Sahu was working as helper in bus

bearing registration No. CG 10 G 0695 and on 29.12.2013 he was

going by the said bus from Bilaspur to Lormi. However, on Kota-Lormi

main road, non-applicant No.1 by driving the said vehicle in a rash and

negligent manner turned it turtle resulting in grievous injuries to

Pramod Sahu and the passengers. However, Pramod Sahu

succumbed to the injuries on the spot itself. At the time of accident, the

offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.2 Pushparaj Sharma

and insured with non-applicant No. 3 Ifco Tokio General Insurance Co.

Ltd.

03. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, claiming total compensation of Rs.23,72,000/-

under various heads.

04. The Tribunal considering the evidence led by both the parties

partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation in favour

of the claimants as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment.

05. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the

Tribunal has awarded a meager amount as compensation to the

claimants. The Tribunal was not justified in assessing the notional

income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per month whereas he was

earning Rs.6000/- per month as a helper. Further, there has to be 50%

addition in the annual income of the deceased towards loss of future

prospects but the Tribunal added only 30%. It is submitted that proper

amount under the conventional heads has also not been awarded and

the interest awarded @ 6% p.a. also is required to be enhanced to 9%

p.a. Therefore, the impugned award deserves to be modified to the

above extent.

06. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for

respondent/insurance company supporting the impugned award

submitted that the Tribunal considering all the relevant aspects of the

matter has rightly passed the award which warrants no interference by

this Court.

07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

08. 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 or a bonanza.

09. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of

Rs.4,31,200/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation

in the given facts and circumstances of the case?

10. The Tribunal for want of any oral or documentary evidence as to

the income of the deceased, assessed the same as Rs.3000/- per

month on notional basis. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was

working as helper and thereby earning Rs.6000/- but no evidence in

support thereof could be adduced, therefore, considering the fact that

the accident took place in the year 2013 when the notional income of

the skilled labour was Rs.4,500/-, the monthly income of the deceased

is taken as Rs.4,500/- i.e. Rs.54,000/- p.a. Further, in view of the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680,

considering the age of the deceased i.e. 20 years, after adding 40%

towards future prospect i.e. Rs.21,600/-, the annual loss of income

comes to Rs.75,600/-/-. As the deceased was a bachelor, after 50%

deduction towards his personal and living expenses and applying the

multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.6,80,400/-.

This apart, the claimants are also entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss

of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/-

towards loss of filial consortium. Thus, the claimants are entitled for

compensation in the following manner:

Sl.        Head              Awarded by Tribunal Awarded          by   this
No.                                              Court
1.    Towards    loss      of Rs.4,21,200/-         Rs.6,80,400/-.
      dependency

2.    Towards loss of estate. Rs.5,000/-            Rs.15,000/-

3.    Towards         funeral Rs.5,000/-            Rs.15,000/-
      expenses

4.    Towards loss of filial NIL                    Rs.40,000/-
      consortium

                  Total      Rs.4,31,200/-          Rs.7,50,400/-

11. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.4,31,200/-, after

deducting the same from the above amount, the claimants are held

entitled for additional compensation of Rs.3,19,200/-.

12. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned

award is modified to the extent that the claimants/appellants shall be

entitled to a total enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.3,19,200/-

with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim

petition till the date of actual payment. Rest of the terms and conditions

of the impugned award shall remain intact.

sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge

Khan