Smt. Indu Bhardwaj vs Pradeep Kumar @ Munna Singh
2025 Latest Caselaw 3445 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Indu Bhardwaj vs Pradeep Kumar @ Munna Singh on 2 April, 2025

                                     1


                           Digitally signed
                           by BHOLA
                           NATH KHATAI
                           Date:
                           2025.04.04
                           10:43:19 +0530




                                                       2025:CGHC:15523


                                                             AFR

    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                     MAC No. 1692 of 2018

1. Smt. Indu Bhardwaj W/o Late Rajeev Bhardwaj Aged About 43
  Years R/o L-7, House Of Shri Pandey, Vinoba Nagar, Police
  Station Tarbahar, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Kumari Divya Bhardwaj D/o Late Rajeev Bhardwaj Aged About 19
  Years R/o L-7, House Of Shri Pandey, Vinoba Nagar, Police
  Station Tarbahar, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Mohit Bhardwaj S/o Late Rajeev Bhardwaj Aged About 15 Years
  Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Indu Bhardwaj (Appellant
  No.1), R/o L-7, House Of Shri Pandey, Vinoba Nagar, Police
  Station Tarbahar, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
4. Rohit Bhardwaj S/o Late Rajeev Bhardwaj Aged About 21 Years
  R/o L-7, House Of Shri Pandey, Vinoba Nagar, Police Station
  Tarbahar, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                      ... Appellants
                               versus

1. Pradeep Kumar @ Munna Singh S/o L. P. Singh Aged About 45
  Years R/o Ward No. 4, Bhawan Nagar, Sirgitti, Police Station
  Sirgitti, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---(Driver Of
  Motorcycle No. CG-10, EP-7948)
2. I.C.I.C. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Through
  Divisional Manager, Office At Vanijya Bhawan Ground Floor
                                     2


     Devendra Nagar Road Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---
     (Insurer Of Motorcycle No. CG-10, EP-7948)
                                                      ... Respondent(s)

For Appellants : Mr. Raghvendra Verma, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Order on Board

02.04.2025

1. This appeal arises out of award dated 25.11.2017 passed by 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.), in Claim Case No.540/2015 awarding compensation of Rs.18,85,164/- with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, in favour of the appellant/claimants for their irreparable loss.

2. The averment in the claim petition, in brief, is that on 03.07.2015 when deceased Rajeev Bhardwaj was going to Narmada Cold Drink, Sirgitti, Bilaspur on his Activa, respondent No. 1 driving his motorcycle bearing Registration No. C.G. 10 EP 7948 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the Activa, as a result of which, deceased Rajeev Bhardwaj suffered grievous injuries and died during treatment in Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur.

3. It was claimed that at the time of accident, Rajeev Bhardwaj was aged about 47 years and was earning Rs.12,800/- per month working as an Accountant in Narmada Drinks Private Limited, Sirgitti. Due to his casual death, there is an irreparable loss to the appellant/claimants who are wife and children of the deceased. Therefore, the claimants preferred an application before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs. 63,00,000/-.

4. Learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents brought on record, held the income of the deceased to be Rs.11,934/- per month after deduction of Rs.756 for EPF and Rs.110 for ESI. Considering the age of the deceased to be 47 years, 1/4th of the income was deducted towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 13, the total loss of dependency worked out to Rs.18,15,164/-. Further, a total amount of Rs.70,000/- has been awarded under other heads. Accordingly, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.18,85,164 /- in favour of the claimants with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal is for enhancement.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. He submits that the Tribunal has wrongly deducted Rs.756 and Rs.110 towards EPF & E.S.I. from the gross income of the deceased while assessing the monthly income. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Kishori Pathak and Ors. Vs. Ludaru Ram Mourya and Ors. (AIR Online 2020 Chh 921). He further submits that the Tribunal has awarded less compensation under other heads which also needs to be enhanced suitably. Thus, prayed for allowing the appeal by enhancing compensation suitably.

6. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent Insurance Company that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. 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.

9. 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. From the evidence it is clear that the deceased was working as an Accountant in Narmada Drinks Private Limited, Sirgitti and as per pay/salary certificate Ex. A-15, his gross income was Rs.12,800/- per month. However, after deducting EPF and ESI allowances of Rs.756 and Rs.110 from the gross income, the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased as Rs.11,934 per month and based on which, the compensation has been calculated.

11. The said deduction appears to be against the principles laid down in the case of Vimal Kanwar and others v. Kishore Dan and others reported in (2013) 7 SCC 476 wherein the Supreme Court held that the amount of PF, Pension, Insurance receivable by the claimants do not come within the periphery of M.V. Act to be termed as pecuniary advantage and therefore, those amounts are not liable for deduction. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as under:

"18. The first issue is "whether provident fund, pension and insurance receivable by the claimants come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as 'pecuniary advantage' liable for deduction."

19. The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before this Court in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC, (1999) 1 SCC 90. In the said case, this Court held that provident fund, pension, insurance and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits etc., are all a "pecuniary advantage" receivable by the heirs on

account of one's death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. Such an amount will not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "pecuniary advantage" liable for deduction."

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Kishori Pathak (supra) while considering the "Tribal Allowance", "House Rent Allowance" and "Water Charges" as part of the income, in paragraph 13 has held as under:-

"It is thus clear from the aforesaid settled principles of law that the statutory deductions like income tax, professional tax and any other contribution which are not repayable by the employer, along can be deducted from the salary of the deceased person while determining the monthly income for computing the amount of compensation 9 towards dependency. In view of the said background, the deduction as made by the Tribunal deducting the amount of Rs. 500/-, Rs. 445/- and Rs. 30/- towards "Tribal Allowance", "House Rent Allowance" and "Water Charges" from the salary of the deceased forming the part of his income, thus, deserved to be and is hereby set aside. It, accordingly, held the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 18,860/- for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation."

13. The amount of EPF and ESI is deducted from the salary of the employees for investment/saving for the benefit of the employees and their family members in future. It is a part of their income and the said amount is refundable with interest. Therefore, in the light of the above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the said amount cannot be deducted from the gross income while determining the monthly income of the deceased. Hence, the income of the deceased is considered to be Rs.12,800/- per month.

14. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the future prospects would be 30% of

the income as rightly held by the Tribunal. The deceased was aged about 47 years at the time of accident. There are 4 claimants who are the wife and children of the deceased, so deduction towards personal expenses would be ¼th of the income as rightly held by the Tribunal. In the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, the compensation is being recomputed as below:-

      Sl.                Particulars                  Calculation
      No.
      1.    Monthly income of the deceased                      12800
      2.    Future prospects(30% of the income)                     3840
      3.    Total                                               16640
      4.    Yearly income                         16640 x 12 = 199680
      5.    Personal expenses     (1/4th of the                 49920
            income)
      6.    Net income                                         149760

7. Total loss of dependency (applying 149760 x 13 =1946880 multiplier of 13)

8. Funeral Expenses 15000

9. Loss of estate 15000

10. Spousal consortium and love & affec- 40000 x 4 = 160000 tion (Rs.40,000 to each claimants) Total compensation Rs.21,36,880

15. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs.21,36,880/- from which after deduction of Rs.18,85,164/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.2,51,716/-.

16. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants are entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs.2,51,716/- in addition to

what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% 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.

17. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in writing "the enhanced amount" in this appeal as against the award made by the 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 claimants reside.

Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

Khatai