Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Rukhmani Devi vs Ameer Das on 1 April, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
Page No.1
2025:CGHC:15250
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 815 of 2020
1. Smt. Rukhmani Devi Wife Of Late Pardeshi Ram Kenwat
Aged About 48 Years Resident Of Mangaon, Laxman
Nagar, Tahsil-Katghora, District-Korba Chhattisgarh.
2. Vimalkant Son Of Late Pardeshiram Kenwat Aged About 30
Years Resident Of Mangaon, Laxman Nagar, Tahsil-
Katghora, District-Korba Chhattisgarh.
3. Neelkanth Son Of Late Pardeshiram Aged About 28 Years
Resident Of Mangaon, Laxman Nagar, Tahsil-Katghora,
District-Korba Chhattisgarh.
4. Mohitram Son Of Late Jageshwar Aged About 72 Years
Resident Of Mangaon, Laxman Nagar, Tahsil-Katghora,
District-Korba Chhattisgarh.
5. Smt Dujbai Wife Of Mohitram Aged About 70 Years
Resident Of Mangaon, Laxman Nagar, Tahsil-Katghora,
District-Korba Chhattisgarh.
... Appellants
versus
1. Ameer Das Son Of Santuram Aged About 36 Years
Resident of Chunchuni, Gevra, Korba, Tahsil & District
Korba (CG.
2. Prithvi Rikal Transporter Private Limited Director-Santosh
Singh Aged About 36 Years Son Of Late Rup Singh,
Digitally signed Resident of In Front of Shahri Park, Kanshinagar, Raipur,
NISHA by NISHA
DUBEY
DUBEY 2025.04.08
Date:
10:22:14 +0530
Tahsil And District-Raipur Chhattisgarh.
Page No.2
3. H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Limited
Through Branch Manager, H.D.F.C. Ergo General
Insurance Company Limited Raipur Office-Devendra Nagar
Tiraha, Commercial Building Raipur, District-Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
.. Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 & 2 : None.
For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Priya Mishra, Advocate on
behalf of Mr. N.K. Thakur, Adv.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Judgment On Board
01/04/2025
1. Heard on I.A. No.1, which is an application for condonation
of delay of 339 days in filing this appeal.
2. On due consideration of submissions of counsel for
respective parties and the reasons assigned in the
application, it is allowed. Delay in preferring this appeal is
hereby condoned.
3. There is no dispute regarding the accident, the cause of
accident as also liability to indemnify the insured owner of
offending vehicle by the insurance company. Sole question
involves in this appeal for consideration is whether or not
the Claims Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation
to the claimant. In such circumstance, issuance of notice
to respondent Nos.1 & 2, who are driver and registered
owner of offending vehicle respectively, is dispensed with.
With the consent of the parties, appeal is being heard finally
at the admission stage itself.
4. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation awarded by learned
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora,
District Korba (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') vide award
dated 28.3.2019 passed in Claim Case No.11/2017.
5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 16.12.2016 at about
11:00 p.m. in the night Pardeshi Ram Kenwat (since
deceased) was going on his motorcycle to his place of
work, when he reached near Soni Dhaba, Kusmunda, the
non-applicant No.1, driver of truck bearing registration
number CG04-JC-7571 (for short 'the offending vehicle'),
while reversing the offending vehicle has dashed
motorcycle of Pardeshi Ram and caused accident. In the
said accident, Pardeshi Ram suffered grievous injuries and
died instantaneously. Accident was reported in concerned
police station based on which Crime No.204/2016 for the
alleged offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC was
registered against the non-applicant No.1.
6. Claimants/appellants herein, who are widow, children and
parents of deceased respectively, filed an application
seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.1,13,00,000/- under
various heads inter alia on the ground that the deceased
was sole earning member in the family and they were
dependent on the income of the deceased.
7. Non-applicant No.1 & 2 / respondents No.1 & 2 herein did
not appear before the Claims Tribunal and therefore, they
were proceeded exparte.
8. Non-applicant No.3- Insurance Company submitted its
written statement denying the averments made in
application. It was pleaded that deceased himself was
responsible for the accident and not the non-applicant No.1
because the deceased himself collided with the offending
vehicle. In the given facts and circumstances of the case,
the principle of contributory negligence attracts in present
case. On the date of accident, non-applicant No.1 was not
having valid and effective driving license to drive offending
vehicle and further, the offending vehicle was plied on road
without there being valid permit and fitness. Since the
offending vehicle was plied in violation of essential
conditions of insurance policy, therefore, the insurance
company is not liable to indemnify the insured.
9. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the pleadings and
evidence placed on record (oral and documentary both) by
the respective parties has arrived at the conclusion that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
offending vehicle by its driver; there was no element of
contributory negligence and consequently, allowed claim
application in part; awarded compensation of
Rs.56,96,173/- along with interest @ 7% p.a. and fastened
liability upon non-applicant No.3/respondent No.3 herein to
satisfy the impugned award.
10. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellant submits that on
the date of accident, deceased was 52 years old and was in
employment of permanent nature, however, while
assessing income of the deceased the Claims Tribunal has
not added anything towards future prospects. He further
submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims
Tribunal under other conventional head is also on lower
side and deserves to be enhanced. Hence, he prays that
this appeal may be allowed and the amount of
compensation be enhanced suitably.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 argues that
the amount of compensation as assessed and granted by
the learned Claims Tribunal does not call for any
interference. He,however, does not dispute that nothing has
been added towards future prospect in the income of
deceased. He submits that in case the amount of
compensation is enhanced, interest for the period of delay
in filing this appeal may not be awarded.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of Claims Tribunal.
13. Fact of accident so also liability is not disputed by learned
counsel representing the Insurance Company, therefore, this
Court is not entering into the said aspect. The only grievance
of claimant-appellant is with regard to quantum of
compensation awarded.
14. Perusal of the impugned award would show that while
assessing income of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal has
not added anything towards the loss of future prospects. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017)16 SCC
680 has held that 15% of the assessed income is to be
added towards future prospects in cases where victim of a
road accident was in the age group of 50 to 60 years and in
permanent employment. In case at hand, there is no dispute
that at the time of accident, deceased was 52 years old, he
was in permanent employment, working as as Electrical
Fitter in South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Dhelwadih. Hence, it
is ordered that appellants are entitled for addition of 15% of
assessed income towards future prospects in the income of
deceased.
15. The Claims Tribunal awarded a lump sum amount of
Rs.75,000/- under other conventional head of loss of love
and affection and Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses. There
has been a thumb rule in this aspect. The Constitution
Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pra-52 of Pranay Sethi's
case (supra) has opined that reasonable figures on
conventional head namely 'loss of estate‟, 'loss of
consortium‟ and 'funeral expenses‟ should be Rs.15,000/-,
Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. Hence, award of
lump sum compensation of Rs.75,000/- awarded under other
conventional head i.e. loss of love and affection as well
funeral expenses, is erroneous and requires to be
reassessed as per the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in case of Pranay Sethi (supra).
16. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram
alias Chuhru Ram and Others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC
130, Hon'ble Apex Court has explained the concept of
consortium in para No.21 to 25 as under:
21.A Constitution Bench of this Court in
Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various
heads under which compensation is to be
awarded in a death case. One of these
heads is Loss of Consortium. In legal
parlance, "consortium" is a compendious
term which encompasses „spousal
consortium‟, „parental consortium‟, and „filial
consortium‟. The right to consortium would
include the company care help comfort,
guidance, solace and affection of the
deceased, which is a loss to his family. With
respect to a spouse, it would include sexual
relations with the deceased spouse.
21.1.Spousal consortium is generally defined
as rights pertaining to the relationship of a
husband wife which allows compensation to
the surviving spouse for loss of "company,
society, co-operation,affection, and aid of the
other in every conjugal relation."
21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the
child upon the premature death of a parent,
for loss of"parental aid, protection, affection,
society, discipline, guidance and training."
21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the
parents to compensation in the case of an
accidental death of a child. An accident
leading to the death of a child causes great
shock and agony to the parents and family of
the deceased. The greatest agony for a
parent is to lose their child during their
lifetime. Children are valued for their love,
affection, companionship and their role in the
family unit.
24.The amount of compensation to be
awarded as consortium will be governed by
the principles of awarding compensation
under "loss of consortium" as laid down in
Pranay Sethi². In the present case, we deem
it appropriate to award the father and the
sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs
40,000 each for loss of filial consortium."
17. From perusal of the above it is apparent that spousal
consortium is awarded to the surviving spouse for loss of
"company, society, co-operation,affection, and aid of the
other in every conjugal relation. Parental Consortium is
awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle
accidents for loss of 'parental aid, protection, affection,
society, discipline, guidance and training'. Whereas, filial
consortium is awarded to the parents who lose their child
during their lifetime in a motor accident. In the case at
hand, perusal of the award would show that the learned
Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards
spousal, parental and filial consortium to the widow,
children and parents of the deceased, for which they are
otherwise entitled as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Magma Insurance (supra).
18.For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate
amount of compensation payable to the
claimants/appellants.
19.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.56,527/-/-
per month and after adding 15% towards future prospects
because on the date of accident, age of deceased was 52
years and in permanent job, the monthly income of
deceased would come to Rs.65,006/- (56527+15% of
56527) and annual income would be Rs.7,80,072/-
(65006x12). After deducting one-fourth towards personal
and living expenses of deceased, as rightly deducted by the
Claims Tribunal, annual loss of dependency would come to
Rs.5,85,054/-. As the deceased was 52 years, multiplier of
11 is applicable and therefore, applying multiplier of 11, the
loss of dependency would be Rs.64,35,594/- (585054x11).
Besides this, appellant No.1 is entitled for a sum of
Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium; appellants No.2 &
3 are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards
parental consortium being children of deceased and
appellant No.4 & 5 are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each
towards filial consortium being parents of the deceased, as
held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Pranay
Sethi (supra) and Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram (supra).
In addition to aforesaid amount, appellants are also entitled
to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and
Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate. Thus, total amount of
compensation comes to Rs.66,65,594/- (6435594 +
2,00,000 + 30,000) recoverable from the respondents,
jointly and severally. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the
impugned award shall remain intact. Any compensation
disbursed to appellants pursuant to impugned award shall
be adjusted.
20.In view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter
of Lakkamma vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
reported in (2021) 20 SCC 797, it is directed that the
appellant will not be entitled for the interest on the
additional amount of compensation for the delayed period,
which is of 339 days, as pointed out by the Registry vide
office note dated 26.6.2020.
21.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned
award stands modified to the extent indicated above.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
nisha
