Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs Smt. Keja Bai
2024 Latest Caselaw 155 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs Smt. Keja Bai on 25 June, 2024

       Neutral Citation
       2024:CGHC:21545




                                       1

                                                                      NAFR
           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                              MAC No. 583 of 2016
     Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal
     Officer, Reliance General Insurance Company, (Present And
     Correct Address) National Corporate House, 5th Floor, Shop No.
     516, Opposite Maruti Business Park G. E. Road Raipur, Tahsil
     And District Raipur Chhattisgarh
                                                            ---- Appellant
                                    Versus
  1. Smt. Keja Bai W/o Sukhchand Sahu, Aged About 52 Years,
     Occupation House Wife, R/o Sudama Nagar Tikrapara In Front Of
     Kostal Colony, P. S. Tikrapara Raipur, District Raipur C.G.
  2. Sukhchand Sahu S/o Late Ramchandra Sahu, Aged About 54
     Years, R/o Sudama Nagar Tikrapara In Front Of Kostal Colony, P.
     S. Tikrapara Raipur District Raipur C.G. (Claimants)
  3. Sanjay Kumar Yadav S/o Bhagwati Prasad Yadav, Aged About 41
     Years, Under Employment And C/o Madan Lal Sharma, Proprietor
     Aasam Bombay Carrier, 101 Devashri Garden, Commercial Marg,
     Near Rutu Park, Majipada, Thane West, Thane (Maharashtra)
     400601
  4. Madan Lal Sharma, Aged About 50 Years, Proprietor Messers
     Asam Bombay Carriers, R/o Asam Bombay Carrier, 101 Devashri
     Garden, Commercial Marg, Near Rutu Park, Majipada, Thane
     West, Thane (Maharashtra) 400601
                                                        ---- Respondents

For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate, with Mr. Chit Ram Sahu, Advocate.

For Respondents : None.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (25.06.2024)

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company under

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the award dated 08.03.2016 passed by 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:21545

Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.187/2014, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.6,84,960/- with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, in favour of the claimants for their irreparable loss.

2. The facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of the present appeal,

are that on 11.02.2013 at about 10:30 p.m., deceased Ajay Kumar Sahu while going from Mahasamund to Raipur on the motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 04 DN 8705, near Birbal Dhaba, National Highway No.6, Labhandi, dashed the stationary truck bearing registration No.HR 55/L 1187 from back side, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries on his body and succumbed to the injuries. Upon report being made in this regard, crime was registered against respondent driver Sanjay Kumar Yadav at PS Telibandha, District Raipur (CG).

3. It was claimed that at the time of accident, deceased Ajay Kumar

Sahu was aged about 25 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by working as a Supervisor. Due to the casual death of deceased Ajay Kumar, there is an irreparable loss to the claimants who are the parents of the deceased. Therefore, the claimants preferred an application before the Claims Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs.22,00,000/-.

4. Learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents

available on record, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,485/- per month i.e. Rs.53,820/- per annum. Since the deceased was aged about 25 years and the claimants are the parents of the deceased, 1/3rd of the income was deducted towards personal expenses and after deduction, the amount comes to Rs.35,880/- per annum. Considering the age of deceased, multiplier of 17 was applied and the total loss of dependency worked out to Rs.6,09,960/-. In addition, Rs.25,000/- Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:21545

for funeral expenses and Rs.50,000/- for love and affection has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.6,84,960/- in favour of the claimants with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, against which the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.

5. Learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company submits that

the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the aspect of contributory negligence as the deceased driving his motorcycle rashly and negligently dashed the Truck which was in stationary position. He further submits that since the deceased was unmarried and the claimants are his parents, the Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses and based on this awarded the compensation which requires to be modified suitably.

6. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents.

7. Heard learned counsel for the Insurance Company and perused

the record.

8. So far as the argument of contributory negligence is concerned,

the statement of eye witness Suryakant Sahu (AW-2) examined on behalf of the claimants is important. Suryakant Sahu who was travelling along with the deceased as a pillion rider has clearly stated that the accident occurred on highway when their motorcycle which was being driven by the deceased hit the stationary truck from back side. This witness, in his cross- examination, has stated that he had seen the truck from a distance of 10 meters. He further stated that after seeing the Truck the deceased applied the brakes of the motorcycle but it collided with the parked truck. He has also stated that there was a Dhaba nearby. From the statement of this witness it appears Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:21545

that there was some amount of negligence on the part of the deceased also as even after applying the brakes, the motorcycle collided with the stationary truck, which shows that the motorcycle was being driven at a high speed. If the deceased had been some cautious while driving the motorcycle, accident could have been avoided. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that there was a contributory negligence of 50% on the part of the deceased also when the accident occurred.

9. So far as the ground of 1/3rd deduction towards personal

expenses and based on which excessive compensation has been calcualted by the Tribunal is concerned, now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

10. Learned Tribunal, has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,485 per month i.e. Rs.53,820 per annum which seems to be proper. However, the Tribunal has not considered future prospects while calculating the compensation. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs.21,528/-, the income comes to Rs.75,348/- per annum.

11. The deceased was an unmarried person aged around 25 years and the claimants are the parents, so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/2 of the income instead of 1/3rd as wrongly held by the Tribunal and after deduction of the same, the annual income comes to Rs.37,674/-. 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 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:21545

Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier would be 18 instead of 17 as held by the Tribunal. Hence, after applying the multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.6,78,132/-. 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, the claimants are also entitled for Rs.40,000/- each i.e. Rs.80,000/- towards love and affection. Accordingly, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs.7,88,132/-.

12. Since there is a contributory negligence of 50% on the part of the deceased, the claimants would be entitled for compensation of Rs.3,94,066/- (50% of 7,88,132) and the appellant Insurance Company is liable for payment of only 50% of the total compensation. Hence, the Claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,94,066/- instead of Rs.6,84,960/- as awarded by the Tribunal, which shall be paid by the appellant Insurance Company to the claimants. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

13. Accordingly, this appeal of the insurance company is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai