Chattisgarh High Court

Dilip Patel vs Tilakdhari Patel on 2 July, 2024

    Neutral Citation
    2024:CGHC:23262




                                  1

                                                            NAFR
      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                       MAC No. 1277 of 2015

                       Reserved on 26.06.2024
                       Delivered on 02.07.2024

  Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Regional Office - Shop No.
  412413, 4th Floor, Ravi Bhawan, Jaistambh Chowk, Raipur - At
  Present 5th Floor, National Corporate Park, G. E. Road, Police
  Station Saraswati Nagar, Civil and Revenue District Raipur
  Chhattisgarh (As Per Claim Application - Insurer).
                                                     ---- Appellant
                               Versus
1. Virendra Patel S/o Jawahar Patel, Aged About 35 Years R/o
  Village Sondiha, Police Station Chandaura, Tahsil Pratappur, At
  Present - Village Gandhinagar, Police Station And Tahsil
  Ambikapur District Sarguja Chhattisgarh (Claimant).
2. Tilakdhari Patel S/o Dayali Patel, R/o Bhaiyya Dafai, Haldi Badi
  Chirmiri Post And Police Station Chirmiri, District Koriya
  Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G. 16-ZA-0603).
3. Rohit Kumar S/o Ramnaresh Patel, R/o Village Sondiha Post
  Bartikala Police Station Chandaura Tahsil Pratappur District
  Sarguja Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G. 16-Z A-0603).
                                                 ---- Respondents

 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Regional Office - Shop No. 412413, 4th Floor. Ravi Bhawan, Jaistambh Chowk, Raipur At Present 5th Floor, National Corporate Park, G. E. Road, Police Station Saraswati Nagar, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh (As Per Claim Application - Insurer).

---- Appellant Versus

1. Dilip Patel S/o Bajilal Patel, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Sondiha, Police Station Chandaura, Tahsil Pratappur, At Present - Village Gangapur, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur District Sarguja Chhattisgarh.

2. Balram Patel S/o Dilip Patel, Aged About 13 Years Minor, Representing Through His Father Mr. Dilip Patel, R/o Village Sondiha, Police Station Chandaura, Tahsil Pratappur, At Present - Village Gangapur, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur District Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23262

Sarguja Chhattisgarh.

3. Ku. Priyanka Patel D/o Dilip Patel, Aged About 15 Years Minor, Representing Through Her Father Mr. Dilip Patel, R/o Village Sondiha, Police Station Chandaura, Tahsil Pratappur, At Present - Village Gangapur, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur District Sarguja Chhattisgarh (Claimants).

4. Tilakdhari Patel S/o Dayali Patel, R/o Bhaiyya Dafai, Haldi Badi Chirmiri Post And Police Station Chirmiri District Koriya Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle No. C G 16 Z A 0603).

5. Rohit Kumar S/o Ramnaresh Patel, R/o Village - Sondiha Post Bartikala, Police Station Chandora, Tahsil Pratappur District Sarguja Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle No. C. G. 16 Z A 0603).

---- Respondents

 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Regional Office - Shop No. 412413, 4th Floor, Ravi Bhawan, Jaistambh Chowk, Raipur, At Present 5th Floor, National Corporate Park, G. E. Road, Police Station Saraswati Nagar, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh (As Per Claim Application - Insurer).

---- Appellant Versus

1. Dayashankar S/o Late Budhi Singh Netam, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Naraula Post Govindpur, Police Station Ramkola, Tahsil Pratappur District Sarguja, At Present Tiwari Building Road, Kedarpur Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur District Sarguja Chhattisgarh.

2. Smt. Devkal W/o Dayashankar, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Naraula Post Govindpur, Police Station Ramkola, Tahsil Pratappur District Sarguja, At Present Tiwari Building Road, Kedarpur Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur District Sarguja Chhattisgarh (Claimants).

3. Tilakdhari Patel S/o Dayali Patel, R/o Bhaiya Dafai, Haldi Badi Chirmiri Post And Police Station Chirmiri District Koriya Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle No. C G 16 Z A 0603).

4. Rohit Kumar S/o Ramnaresh Patel, R/o Village - Sondiha Post Bartikala, Police Station Chandora Tahsil Pratappur District Sarguja Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle No. C G 16 Z A 0603).

---- Respondents

 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Regional Office - Shop No. 412, 413, 4th Floor, Ravi Bhawan, Jaistambh Chowk, Raipur - At Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23262

Present - 5th Floor, National Corporate Park, G. E. Road, Police Station Saraswati Nagar, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh (As Per Claim Application - Insurer).

---- Appellant Versus

1. Virendra Kumar Patel S/o Jawahar Patel, Aged About 35 Years R/o Sondiha, Police Station Chandaura, Tahsil Pratappur, At Present Gandhi Nagar, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur District - Sarguja Chhattisgarh (Claimant).

2. Smt. Anjana W/o Virendra Kumar Patel, Aged About 32 Years R/o Sondiha, Police Station Chandaura, Tahsil Pratappur, At Present Gandhi Nagar, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur District - Sarguja Chhattisgarh (Claimants).

3. Tilakdhari Patel S/o Dayali Patel, R/o Bhaiyya Dafai, Haldi Badi Chirmiri Post And Police Station Chirmiri, District Koriya Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle No. C G 16 Z A 0603).

4. Rohit Kumar S/o Ramnaresh Patel, R/o Village - Sondiha Post Bartikala, Police Station Chandora, Tahsil Pratappur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle No. C G 16 Z A 0603).

---- Respondents

 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Regional Office - Shop No. 412, 413, 4th Floor, Ravi Bhawan, Jaistambh Chowk, Raipur - At Present 5th Floor, National Corporate Park, G. E. Road, Police Station Saraswati Nagar, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh (As Per Claim Application Insurer).

---- Appellant Versus

1. Surendra Kumar Patel S/o Ayodhya Prasad Patel, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Sondiha, Police Station Chandaura, Tahsil Pratappur, At Present - Village Gangapur, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur District Sarguja Chhattisgarh.

2. Usha Devi W/o Surendra Patel, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Sondiha, Police Station Chandaura, Tahsil Pratappur, At Present - Village Gandhi Nagar, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh (Claimants).

3. Tilakdhari Patel S/o Dayali Patel, R/o Bhaiyya Dafai, Haldi Badi Chirmiri Post And Police Station Chirmiri District Koriya Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle No. C G 16 Z A 0603).

4. Rohit Kumar S/o Ramnaresh Patel, R/o Village - Sondiha Post Bartikala, Police Station Chandora, Tahsil Pratappur, District Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23262

Sarguja Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle No. C G 16 Z A 0603).

---- Respondents

1. Surendra Kumar Patel S/o Ayodhya Prasad Patel, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Sondiha, PS Chandora, Tahsil Prataprpur, Presently R/o Gandhinagar, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.

2. Usha Devi W/o Surendra Kumar Patel, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Sonadihi, P S. Chandora, Tahsil Prataprpur, Presently R/o Gandhinagar, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh (Claimants).

---- Appellants Versus

1. Tilakdhari Patel S/o Dayali Patel, R/o Bhaiya Dafai, Haldi Badi, Chirmiri, Post And PS Chirmiri, District Korea Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Vehicle Bearing Registration No. CG-16-ZA- 0603).

2. Rohit Kumar S/o Ramnaresh Patel, R/o Village Sondiha, Post Bartikala, PS Chandora, Tahsil Pratappur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Vehicle).

3. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, Raipur Shop No. 412, 413, 4th Floor, Ravi Bhavan, Jaistambh Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 (Insurer Of The Vehicle).

---- Respondents

1. Dilip Patel S/o Baji Lal Patel, Aged About 40 Years R/o Sondih, PS Chandora, Tahsil Pratappur, Presently R/o Gandhi Nagar, P S And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

2. Balram Patel, S/o Dilip Patel, Aged About 13 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Father Dilip Patel, S/o Bajilal Patel, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Sondiha, P. S. Chandora, Tahsil Pratappur, Presently R/o Gandhi Nagar, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

3. Ku. Priyanka Patel D/o Dilip Patel, Aged About 15 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Father Dilip Patel, S/o Bajilal Patel, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Sondih, P.S. Chandora, Tahsil Pratappur, Presently R/o Gandhi Nagar, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Claimants).

---- Appellants Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23262

Versus

1. Tilakdhari Patel S/o Dayali Patel, R/o Bhaiya Dafai, Haldi Badi, Chirmiri, Post And P S Chirmiri, District Korea Chhattisgarh (Owner of The Vehicle Bearing Registration No. C.G.-16-Z A- 0603).

2. Rohit Kumar S/o Ramnaresh Patel, R/o Village Sondiha, Post Bartikala, P S Chandora, Tahsil Pratappur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Vehicle).

3. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, Raipur Shop No. 412, 413, 4th Floor, Ravi Bhavan, Jaistambh Chowk Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001 (Insurer Of The Vehicle).

---- Respondents

1. Dayashankar S/o Late Shri Budi Singh Netam, Aged About 45 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Narola, Post Govindpur, P S Ramkola, Tahsil Pratappur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh Presently R/o Tiwari Building Road, Kedarpur, P S And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh.

2. Smt. Devkal, W/o Dayashankar, Aged About 40 Years, Caste Gond, R/o Village Narola, Post Govindpur, P S Ramkola, Tahsil Pratappur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh Presently R/o Tiwari Building Road, Kedarpur, P S And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh (Claimants).

---- Appellants Versus

1. Tilakdhari Patel S/o Dayali Patel, R/o Bhaiya Dafai, Haldi Badi, Chirmiri, Post And P S Chirmiri, District Korea Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Vehicle Bearing Registration No. C.G.-16-ZA- 0603).

2. Rohit Kumar S/o Ramnaresh Patel, R/o Village Sondiha, Post Bartikala, PS Chandora, Tahsil Pratappur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Vehicle).

3. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Regional Office, Raipur Shop No. 412, 413, 4th Floor, Ravi Bhavan, Jaistambh Chowk Raipur Chhattisgarh, 492001 (Insurer Of The Vehicle).

---- Respondents

1. Virendra Kumar Patel S/o Jawahar Patel, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Sonadihi, P S. Chandora, Tahsil Prataprpur, Presently R/o Gandhinagar, P. S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh.

Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23262

2. Smt. Anjana, W/o Virendra Kumar Patel, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Sonadihi, P S. Chandora, Tahsil Prataprpur, Presently R/o Gandhinagar, P. S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh (Claimants).

---- Appellants Versus

1. Tilakdhari Patel S/o Dayali Patel, R/o Bhaiya Dafai, Haldi Badi, Chirmiri, Post And PS Chirmiri, District Korea Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Vehicle Bearing Registration No. C G 16 Z A 0603).

2. Rohit Kumar S/o Ramnaresh Patel, R/o Village Sondiha, Post Bartikala, PS Chandora, Tahsil Pratappur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Vehicle).

3. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, Raipur Shop No. 412, 413, 4th Floor, Ravi Bhavan, Jaistambh Chowk Raipur Chhattisgarh, 492001 (Insurer Of The Vehicle).

---- Respondents

1. Amit Patel S/o Dayaram Patel, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Sondih, P. S. Chandora, Tahsil Pratappur, Presently R/o Gandhi Nagar, P S And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

2. Sachit Patel, S/o Dayaram Patel, Aged About 22 Years R/o Sondih, P. S. Chandora, Tahsil Pratappur, Presently R/o Gandhi Nagar, P S And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

---- Appellants Versus

1. Tilakdhari Patel S/o Dayali Patel, R/o Bhaiya Dafai, Haldi Badi, Chirmiri, Post And PS Chirmiri, District Korea Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Vehicle Bearing Registration No. C G 16 Z A 0603).

2. Rohit Kumar S/o Ramnaresh Patel, R/o Village Sondiha, Post Bartikala, PS Chandora, Tahsil Pratappur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Vehicle).

3. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, Raipur Shop No. 412, 413, 4th Floor, Ravi Bhavan, Jaistambh Chowk Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001 (Insurer Of The Vehicle).

---- Respondents

 Virendra Patel S/o Jawahar Patel, Aged About 35 Years R/o Sondih, P. S. Chandora, Tahsil Pratappur, Presently R/o Gandhi Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23262

Nagar, P S And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Claimant).

---- Appellant Versus

1. Tilakdhari Patel S/o Dayali Patel, R/o Bhaiya Dafai, Haldi Badi, Chirmiri, Post And PS Chirmiri, District Korea Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Vehicle Bearing Registration No. C G 16 Z A 0603).

2. Rohit Kumar S/o Ramnaresh Patel, R/o Village Sondiha, Post Bartikala, PS Chandora, Tahsil Pratappur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Vehicle).

3. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, Raipur Shop No. 412, 413, 4th Floor, Ravi Bhavan, Jaistambh Chowk Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001 (Insurer Of The Vehicle).

---- Respondents

For Insurance Company: Mr. Himanshu Thakur, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Nilesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For Claimants : Mr. Vishal Sahu, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal C A V JUDGMENT

1. Since these 11 appeals have arisen out of the same accident,

they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. MAC Nos. 1277/2015, 1257/2015, 1258/2015, 1261/2015 &

1262/2015 have been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 27.03.2015 passed by 2 nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, Sarguja (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case Nos.(C.N) 481/2011, 482/2011, 485/2011, 480/2011 & 484/2011 respectively for exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability.

3. MAC Nos.782/2016, 783/2016, 784/2016, 785/2016, 786/2016 &

787/2016 have been preferred by the claimants against the Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23262

award dated 27.03.2015 passed by 2 nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, Sarguja (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case Nos.(CN) 484/2011, 482/2011, 485/2011, 480/2011, 483/2011 & 481/2011 respectively for enhancement of the compensation.

4. The facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of these 11 appeals, are

that on 09.11.2008 at about 5:00 p.m., when the deceased persons namely Mamtesh Patel, Smt. Binu Devi, Mattu @ Jagarnath, Chandan Kumar Patel, Smt. Sumati Devi and Smt. Vimla Devi along with other persons were returning from Wardrafnagar in the offending vehicle i.e. Jeep bearing registration No.CG 16 ZA 0603 which was being driven rashly and carelessly by Rohit Kumar, it lost control and collided with a tree, as a result of which, the said 6 persons suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. Upon report being made in this regard, crime was registered against driver Rohit Kumar at PS Wardrafnagar, District Balrampur (CG).

5. Since theses five MAC Nos. 1277/2015, 1257/2015, 1258/2015,

1261/2015 & 1262/2015 have been preferred by the Insurance Company, they are being decided first.

MAC Nos. 1277/2015, 1257/2015, 1258/2015, 1261/2015 &

6. The above appeals have been filed on behalf of Reliance General

Insurance Company Limited. The impugned award has been passed by the Tribunal against the insurance company holding that on the date of accident the offending vehicle was insured by the insurance company. This has been challenged on the ground that the vehicle in question was not insured by them on the date of accident.

Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23262

7. Learned counsel for the insurance company argues that the cover

note Exhibit P-10 produced by the claimant party is a copy and is fake. The cover note Exhibit D-1-C produced by the legal officer Abhishek Singh on behalf of the insurance company in the name of Tilakdhari Patel i.e. the registered owner of the vehicle, is related to the period from 06/12/2008 to 05/12/2009 whereas the accident took place before that on 09/11/2008. Thus, the vehicle in question was not insured on the date of accident, rather its insurance became effective after about a month on 06/12/2008. Therefore, the insurance company should be exonerated from its liability.

8. In the case, the registered owner of the offending vehicle

Tilakdhari Patel and the driver Rohit Kumar have been exparte from the beginning and no pleadings, evidence or arguments have been presented on their behalf.

9. During the trial, the claimants party presented a photocopy of the

cover-note of the vehicle in question before the Tribunal, which was marked as Exhibit P-10. According to it, the insurance period in the cover-note issued for the vehicle is from 06/11/2008 to 05/11/2009, according to which, the vehicle is reflected to be insured on the date of accident 09/11/2008.

10. The Tribunal, on the basis of the statement of the insurance company's witness Abhishek Singh, has accepted that according to the carbon copy of the cover note Exhibit D-1-C presented by him, the period of insurance is from 06/12/2008 to 05/12/2009. But, if we peruse Exhibit D-1-C, this date is not clearly reflected in it.

11. Learned counsel for the insurance company was repeatedly asked by this Court to present such a cover note in which the date of insurance is clearly visible but he failed to file the same.

Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23262

Since, the insurance period is not clearly visible in the cover note Exhibit D-1-C presented by the legal officer of the insurance company namely Abhishek Singh, it cannot be said that the cover note Exhibit D-1-C presented by the insurance company has been effective from 06/12/2008 after the date of accident i.e. 09/11/2008.

12. A perusal of the record shows that according to the seizure document Exhibit P-2 of the criminal case, the insurance policy of Reliance Company is also mentioned in the documents seized along with the offending vehicle. From which, it is clear that the offending vehicle had an insurance policy.

13. After presentation of insurance cover note Exhibit P-10 by the claimants party, the burden of proving it to be fake was on the insurance company because the driver and the registered owner of the offending vehicle have remained exparte from the beginning in the case. According to the cover note Exhibit P-10, the effect of the insurance was from 06/11/2008 i.e. before the accident date 09/11/2008 and till 05/11/2009 and the burden of proving it to be erroneous was on the insurance company. The date is not clearly visible in the carbon copy of the cover note submitted by the insurance company as Exhibit D-1-C. Therefore, the statement of the legal officer Abhishek Singh that the date in the insurance cover note issued by his company is from 06/12/2008 to 05/12/2009 i.e. after the accident is not found acceptable.

14. It is an important fact that for showing the cover note Exhibit P-10 as fake, the insurance company could have sent a notice to the registered owner of the offending vehicle and demanded the policy, which has not been done by the insurance company. Abhishek Singh, the legal officer of the insurance Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23262

company, himself admitted that he did not bring the cover note book at the time of the statement. He also admitted that he has not made any complaint in the Court that the cover note presented by the claimants party Exhibit P-10 is fake. At the end of his statement, on the Court's question, he has also admitted that the original copy of the insurance policy is with the owner of the vehicle and a copy of it is in Jabalpur office. The insurance company has not made any attempt to present that copy of the insurance in the Court for proving the cover note Exhibit P-10 presented by the claimants as fake. This reflects that the insurance company has admitted that the cover note was issued in the year 2008 after receiving the insurance amount for the offending vehicle. However, no such cover note has been presented to clarify the date so that the actual situation can be clarified. By presenting the insurance policy, it could have been clearly proved that from which date and for which date the policy was effective. But the insurance company has not clarified the actual situation by not presenting it.

15. In the light of the facts and evidence available on record, the conclusion of the Tribunal is found to be justified that the insurance company has failed to prove that the offending vehicle was not insured by them on the date of accident and the cover- note Exhibit P-10 is fake. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the above conclusion of the Tribunal. Thus, the argument of learned counsel for insurance company is not found acceptable and the appeals filed by them is dismissed.

MAC Nos.782/2016, 783/2016, 784/2016, 785/2016, 786/2016 &

16. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants in the above six appeals submits that the compensation awarded by the Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23262

Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. He next submits that the Tribunal has erred in not considering future prospects while computing compensation as it failed to appreciate that the deceased persons could have earned much more if they had not met with the accident. He further submits that the Tribunal has awarded less compensation under other heads which also needs to be enhanced suitably.

17. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company opposes the submission made by the counsel for appellants and submits that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement.

18. 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.

19. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper in the given facts and circumstances of the case, for which, these six MAC Nos.782/2016, 783/2016, 784/2016, 785/2016, 786/2016 & 787/2016 preferred by the claimants are being decided one by one.

MAC 782 of 2016

20. In this case, it was claimed that at the time of accident, deceased Mamtesh Patel was a student of 8 th Class and his age was about 15 years. It was also claimed that he was a brilliant student and after becoming highly educated could have earned high income. Due to the casual death of deceased Mamtesh Patel, there is an irreparable loss to the claimants who are the Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23262

parents of the deceased. The claimants preferred an application before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs.35,35,000/-.

21. Learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents brought on record, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum as there was no fixed income of the deceased. Since the deceased was aged about 15 years and the claimants are the parents of the deceased, 50% of the income was deducted towards personal expenses and after deduction, the amount comes to Rs.18,000/- per annum. Considering the age of the deceased multiplier of 18 was applied and the total loss of dependency worked out to Rs.3,24,000/-. In addition, Rs.20,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.30,000/- for love and affection has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.3,74,000/- in favour of the claimants with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal is for enhancement.

22. At the time of accident, deceased Mamtesh Patel was a student of about 15 years. Learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000 per annum which seems to be proper. However, the Tribunal has not considered future prospects while computing compensation. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the future prospect would be 40%. Hence, after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs.14,400/-, the annual income comes to Rs.50,400. The deceased was aged around 15 years and the claimants are his parents, so deduction towards personal expenses would be ½ of the income as has been rightly held by the Tribunal and after deduction of the same, the annual dependency comes to Rs.25,200/-. In view of judgment of the Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23262

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier would be 18 as rightly held by the Tribunal. After applying the said multiplier, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.4,53,600/-. The claimants are further entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, both the claimants are also entitled for Rs.80,000/- (40,000/- each) towards love and affection. Hence, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,63,600/-.

23. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs.5,63,600/- from which after deduction of Rs.3,74,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhanced compensation would be Rs.1,89,600/-.

24. Accordingly, MAC No.782/2016 is partly allowed. The claimants shall be entitled for the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,89,600/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. Accordingly, the impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.

MAC 783 of 2016

25. In this case, it was claimed that at the time of accident, deceased Binu Devi was aged about 35 years and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month from agriculture and labour work. Due to the casual death of Smt. Binu Devi, there is an irreparable loss to the claimants who are the husband and children of the deceased.

Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23262

Therefore, the claimants preferred an application before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs.49,05,000/-.

26. Learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents brought on record, assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum. Considering the fact that there are total 3 claimants i.e. the husband and 2 children of the deceased, 1/3rd of the income was deducted towards personal expenses and after deduction, the amount comes to Rs.24,000/-. Considering the age of the deceased, multiplier of 16 was applied and the total loss of dependency worked out to Rs.3,84,000/-. Further, Rs.20,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.50,000/- for love and affection has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.4,54,000/- in favour of the claimants with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement.

27. From the record it is evident that deceased Binu Devi was working as a labour. Learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000 per month i.e. Rs.36,000 per annum which seems to be proper. However, the Tribunal has not considered future prospects while computing compensation. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, after adding 40% towards future prospect i.e. Rs.14,400/-, the annual income comes to Rs.50,400.

28. The deceased was aged about 35 years and there are total 3 claimants who are the husband and two children of the deceased, so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3rd as has been held by the tribunal and after deduction of personal expenses, the dependency comes to Rs.33,600. In view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23262

Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier would be 16 as rightly held by the Tribunal and applying the said multiplier, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.5,37,600. The claimants are also entitled for Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses. As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for Rs.40,000/- each for love and affection totaling Rs.1,20,000/-. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.6,87,600/-.

29. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs.6,87,600/- from which after deduction of Rs.4,54,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhanced compensation would be Rs. 2,33,600/-.

30. In the result, MAC No.783/2016 is partly allowed. The claimants shall be entitled for the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,33,600/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. Accordingly, the impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.

MAC 784 of 2016

31. In this case, it was claimed that at the time of accident, deceased Mattu @ Jagarnath was a student of 8 th Class and aged around 18 years. It was also claimed that he was a brilliant student and after becoming highly educated could have earned high income. Due to the casual death of deceased Mattu @ Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23262

Jagarnath, there is an irreparable loss to the claimants who are the parents of the deceased. The claimants preferred an application before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs.35,35,000/-.

32. Learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents brought on record, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum as there was no fixed income of the deceased. Since the deceased was aged about 18 years and the claimants are the parents of the deceased, 50% of the income was deducted towards personal expenses and after deduction, the amount comes to Rs.18,000/- per annum. Considering the age of the deceased multiplier of 18 was applied and the total loss of dependency worked out to Rs.3,24,000/-. In addition, Rs.20,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.30,000/- for love and affection has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.3,74,000/- in favour of the claimants with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal is for enhancement.

33. At the time of accident, deceased Mattu @ Jagarnath was a student and aged about 18 years. Learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000 per month i.e. Rs.36,000 per annum which seems to be proper. However, the Tribunal has not considered future prospects while computing compensation. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, after adding 40% towards future prospect i.e. Rs.14,400/-, the annual income comes to Rs.50,400. The deceased was unmarried, aged around 18 years and the claimants are his parents, so deduction towards personal expenses would be 50% as rightly held by the Tribunal and after Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23262

deduction of the same, the annual dependency comes to Rs.25,200/-. In view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier would be 18 as rightly held by the Tribunal. After applying the said multiplier, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.4,53,600/-. The claimants are further entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, both the claimants are also entitled for Rs.80,000/- (40,000/- each) towards love and affection. Hence, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,63,600/-.

34. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs.5,63,600/- from which after deduction of Rs.3,74,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhanced compensation would be Rs.1,89,600/-.

35. Accordingly, MAC No.784/2016 is partly allowed. The claimants shall be entitled for the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,89,600/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. Accordingly, the impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.

MAC 785 of 2016

36. In this case, it was claimed that at the time of accident, deceased Chandan Kumar Patel was a student of 7 th Class and his age was 14 years. It was also claimed that he was a brilliant Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23262

student and after becoming highly educated could have earned high income. Due to the casual death of deceased Chandan Kumar, there is an irreparable loss to the claimants who are the parents of the deceased. The claimants preferred an application before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs.45,35,000/-.

37. Learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents available on record has awarded total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- including Rs.30,000 for love and affection and Rs.20,000 for funeral expenses, in favour of the claimants with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal is for enhancement.

38. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto alias Nemchand Mahto and Others reported in (2023) 1 SCC 204 wherein in a case of death of a minor child, the Supreme Court in para-16 & 18 held as under:

"16. Thus applying the ratio of the said judgments, looking to the age of the child in the present case i.e. 12 years, the principles laid down in case of Kishan Gopal (supra) are aptly applicable to the facts of the present case. As per the ocular statement of the mother of the deceased, it is clear that deceased was a brilliant student and studying in a private school. Therefore, accepting the notional earning Rs. 30,000/- including future prospect and applying the multiplier of 15 in view of the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma (supra), the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,50,000/- and if we add Rs. 50,000/-

in conventional heads, then the total sum of compensation comes to Rs.5,00,000/-.

As per the judgment of MACT, lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been awarded, while the High Court enhanced it to Rs. 2,00,000/- up to the value of the Claim Petition. In our view, the said Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23262

amount of compensation is not just and reasonable looking to the computation made hereinabove. Hence, we determine the total compensation as Rs. 5,00,000/-

and on reducing the amount as awarded by the High Court i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/-, the enhanced amount comes to Rs.

3,00,000/-.

18. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The amount of compensation, as awarded by the High Court is enhanced by Rs.

3,00,000/-, in addition. The total amount of compensation would be Rs. 5,00,000/-.

The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of Claim Petition till realization. The due amount be paid by the respondent No. 4 - United India Insurance Company within a period of four weeks from today."

39. Applying the same principle and analogy in the present case also, this Court is inclined to enhance the compensation payable to the claimants herein in similar terms and quantifies the compensation at Rs.4,50,000/- towards loss of dependency and Rs.50,000/- under the conventional head. Thus, the claimants in the instant case shall be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in stead of Rs.2,00,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal.

40. Accordingly, MAC No.785/2016 stands partly allowed. The claimants shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (5,00,000-2,00,000) in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.

41. In this case, it was claimed that on the date of accident, deceased Sumati Devi was aged about 45 years and was earning Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23262

Rs.6,000/- per month from agriculture and labour work. Due to the casual death of Smt. Sumati Devi, there is an irreparable loss to the claimants who are the sons of the deceased. Therefore, the claimants preferred an application before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs.41,85,000/-.

42. Learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents available on record, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. 36,000/- per annum. Taking note of the fact that the age of the deceased was 45 years and there are 2 claimants, 1/3rd of the income was deducted towards personal expenses and after deduction, the amount comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum. Considering the age of the deceased, multiplier of 14 was applied and the total loss of dependency worked out to Rs.3,36,000/-. Further, Rs.20,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.30,000/- for love and affection has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.3,86,000/- in favour of the claimants with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization.

43. From the record it is evident that deceased Sumati Devi was working as a labour. Learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000 per month i.e. Rs.36,000 per annum which seems to be proper. However, the Tribunal has not considered future prospects while computing compensation. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the future prospects would be 25%. Hence, after adding 25% towards future prospects i.e. Rs.9,000/-, the annual income comes to Rs.45,000.

44. The deceased was aged about 45 years and there are total 2 claimants who are the sons of the deceased, so deduction Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23262

towards personal expenses would be 1/3rd as has been held by the tribunal and after deduction of personal expenses, the dependency comes to Rs.30,000/-. In view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier would be 14 as rightly held by the Tribunal and applying the said multiplier, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.4,20,000/-. The claimants are also entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, both the claimants are further entitled for Rs.80,000/- (40,000 each) for love and affection. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,30,000/-.

45. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs.5,30,000/- from which after deduction of Rs.3,86,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhanced compensation would be Rs.1,44,000/-.

46. Accordingly, MAC No.786/2016 is partly allowed. The claimants shall be entitled for the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,44,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. Accordingly, the impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.

47. In this case, it was claimed that at the time of accident, the age of deceased Vimla Devi was about 45 years who was earning Rs.6,000/- per month from farming and labour work. Due to the casual death of Smt. Vimla Devi, there is an irreparable loss to the Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23262

claimant who is the husband of the deceased. Therefore, the claimant preferred an application before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs.29,85,000/-.

48. Learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents available on record, assessed the income of the deceased at 36,000/- per annum. Further, 1/3rd of the income was deducted towards personal expenses and after deduction, the amount comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum. Considering the age of the deceased, multiplier of 14 was applied and the total loss of dependency worked out to Rs.3,36,000/-. In addition, Rs.20,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.30,000/- for love and affection has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.3,86,000/- in favour of the claimant with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization.

49. From the evidence it is evident that deceased Vimla Devi was working as a labour. Learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000 per annum which seems to be proper. However, the Tribunal has not considered future prospects while computing compensation. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, after adding 25% towards future prospects i.e. Rs.9,000/-, the annual income comes to Rs.45,000.

50. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 45 years and there is only one claimant, so deduction towards personal expenses would be ½ instead of 1/3 as wrongly held by the tribunal. After deduction of 50% of the income towards personal expenses, the dependency comes to Rs.22,500. In view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23262

another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier would be 14 as rightly held by the Tribunal and applying the said multiplier, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.3,15,000. The claimant is also entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimant is further entitled for Rs.40,000/- for love and affection. Hence, total compensation comes to Rs.3,85,000/- whereas the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,86,000/-. Therefore, affirming the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal, the present appeal is dismissed.

51. Accordingly, MAC No.787/2016 stands dismissed.

52. In the result, the appeals preferred by the Insurance Company i.e. MAC Nos. 1277/2015, 1257/2015, 1258/2015, 1261/2015 & 1262/2015 are dismissed and the appeals filed by the claimants i.e. MAC Nos.782/2016, 783/2016, 784/2016, 785/2016 & 786/2016, except one appeal MAC 787/2016, are partly allowed and MAC No.787/2016 filed by the claimant is also dismissed.

53. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing "the enhanced amount" in this appeal as against the award made by the Claims Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi (Deonagri) language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimant reside. Sd Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai