Chattisgarh High Court
Urmila vs Akbar Ali on 8 April, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
Page No.1
2025:CGHC:16513
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 638 of 2020
1. Urmila Wd/o Ashok Nishad Aged About 34 Years R/o-
Baramdaipara, Near Santoshi Mandir, Khamtarai, Police Station
Khamtarai, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh,
2. Ku. Khushbu D/o Late Ashok Nishad Aged About 16 Years Minor
Through Her Legal Guardian Mother Urmila. R/o Baramdaipara,
Near Santoshi Mandir, Khamtarai, Police Station Khamtarai,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,Chhattisgarh
3. Shakun Wd/o Ramdhin Nishad Aged About 60 Years R/o
Baramdaipara, Near Santoshi Mandir, Khamtarai, Police Station
Khamtarai, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant(s)
versus
1. Akbar Ali S/o Ishab Ali Through Mehrab Motors Pvt. Ltd., D-25,
Jaganpath, C-Scheme Jaipur, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) Pin-
202033. (Driver of Truck No. R.J. 14/GJ/1093)
2. Mehrab Motors Pvt. Ltd. By Incharge Officer, Meherab Motors
Pvt. Ltd., D-25, Jaganpath, C-Scheme Jaipur, District Jaipur
(Rajasthan) Pin- 202033. (Owner Of Truck No. R.J. 14/GJ/1093)
3. Universal Sampo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Incharge
Officer, Universal Sampo General Insurance Co. Ltd., In Front Of
Rajkumar College, Raipur, Police Station Amanaka, Raipur,
District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Truck No. R.J.
14/GJ/1093)
Page No.2
_________________________________________________________
For Appellants : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 & 2: None.
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Judgment On Board
08/04/2025
1. Heard on I.A. No.1, which is an application for condonation of
delay of 83 days in filing this appeal.
2. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1 & 2,
though served.
3. 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.
4. The appeal is admitted for hearing.
5. With the consent of the parties, the case is heard finally.
6. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal challenging the award
dated 06.09.2019 passed by the learned Chief Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District- Raipur (for short 'the Claims
Tribunal') in Claim Case No.63/2018 whereby the Claims Tribunal
allowed claim application of claimants in part and awarded
compensation of Rs.9,66,000/- to claimants/appellants herein
along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim
application, in a fatal accident case.
7. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 03.10.2017 at about 12:45
p.m. when Ashok Nishad was resting on the roadside behind
Manav Motor in Bhanpuri, at that time truck bearing registration
No.RJ14-GJ-1093 (henceforth 'the offending vehicle'), driven
rashly and negligently by non-applicant No.1, ran over him
resulting into his death on spot. Accident was reported to
concerned police station based on which Crime No.471/2017 for
commission of alleged offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 &
304A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against
respondent No.1.
8. Claimants/appellants herein, who are wife and son of the
deceased, filed an application claiming compensation to the tune
of Rs.19,90,000/- under various heads on the ground that on the
date of accident, deceased was working as a Labourer, earning
Rs.9,000/- per month and they were dependent on earning of
deceased.
9. Non-applicant No.1 & 2 did not appear before the Claims Tribunal
and therefore, they were proceeded exparte.
10.Non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company filed its separate reply
and denied averments made in claim application except that on
the date of accident the offending vehicle was insured with it.
Accident with the offending vehicle was denied. It was also
denied that at the time of the accident Ashok Nishad was working
in the factory and earning a monthly income of Rs. 9,000/-. It was
pleaded that at the time of accident, truck driver did not possess
valid and effective driving license to drive offending vehicle and
even the offending vehicle was being driven without fitness and
permit and as such, there was violation of conditions of insurance
policy and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay
compensation.
11.Upon appreciating the pleadings and evidence brought on record
(oral and documentary both) by the respective parties, the Claims
Tribunal arrived at conclusion that claimants failed to prove
occupation and income of deceased by producing clinching and
cogent evidence and therefore, fixed monthly income of
deceased on notional basis; the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving by non-applicant No.1; there was no
violation of any condition of insurance policy. The Claims
Tribunal has allowed the application in part, awarded total
compensation of Rs.9,66,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. and
fastened liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon
respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
12. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal
erred in assessing income of deceased on notional basis,
particularly when there was specific pleading and evidence of
claimants that deceased was working in a factory and earning
Rs.9,000/- per month. He further submits that the amount
awarded for loss of consortium is on lower side. Hence, he prays
for enhancement of the amount of compensation suitably.
13. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposing submissions
made by counsel for appellants, would submit that the impugned
award passed by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case, which does not call for any
interference. As the claimants failed to prove the nature of
employment of deceased and income therefrom, the Claims
Tribunal has rightly assessed the income on notional basis.
14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
15. As regards the income of deceased, claimants have pleaded and
stated in their evidence that at the time of accident, deceased was
working in a factory as a Labourer and earning Rs.9000/- per
month, but they have not produced any income certificate/salary
slip nor examined the employer or any official of the factory where
deceased was working, to prove the fact of employment and
income of deceased. Under these circumstances, in the
considered opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal has not
committed any mistake in assessing the income of deceased on
notional basis. However, in cases where documentary evidence
is not produced to prove income of the deceased, the Claims
Tribunal should determine income on the basis of wages
prevailing in area, price index, cost of living or can take help of the
wage rate notified under the Minimum Wages Act. In case at
hand, the Claims Tribunal, on guess work assessed income of
deceased to be Rs.5,000/- per month but did not resort to
circulars/notifications issued by the Competent Authority under the
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 fixing wage rate for skilled, unskilled
and high skilled workers and therefore, fixation of income of
deceased at Rs.5000/- per month by learned Claims Tribunal is
not proper.
16. Date of accident is 3.10.2017. As per Schedule 'B' issued by the
Labour Commissioner-cum-Competent Authority under the
Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Raipur prescribing minimum wage for
the unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled and high skilled workers for the
period from 1.10.2017 to 31.3.2017, would show that minimum
wage notified for a unskilled worker is Rs.8,320/- per month for 'A'
grade city. Thus, considering the pleadings in claim application
and statement of appellants that the deceased was working as
Labourer and further considering minimum wage rate prevailing
for unskilled worker on the date of accident in District Raipur,
which is a 'A' grade city, I am of the view that income of deceased
can be fixed at Rs.8,320/- per month.
17. Addition of future prospects to assessed income of deceased,
standard deduction towards personal and living expenses of
deceased and multiplier is correctly applied by the Claims Tribunal
and the same does not call for any interference. Compensation
awarded under the head 'funeral expenses' is also found to be
correct. However, the Claims Tribunal was not justified in
awarding Rs.40,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15000/- for
loss of consortium. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National
Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017)
16 SCC 680, has held that each legal representative of the victim
of a road accident is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss
of consortium. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors.
reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 has categorized the loss of
consortium into three categories i.e. spousal, parental and filial.
Thus, the claimants-appellants being wife, daughter and mother of
deceased, are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each for loss of
spousal consortium and parental consortium respectively. It is
ordered accordingly.
18. In case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has also
held that the amounts under other conventional heads should be
revisited on percentage basis in every three years and
enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of every
three years. In case at hand, accident is of the year 2017, so
more than six years have elapsed. Hence, the appellants are
entitled for 10% enhancement on the amount under other
conventional heads. So, by enhancing the amount awarded under
other conventional heads at the rate of 10%, the appellants are
now entitled for a sum of Rs.16,500/- each (15000+10% increase
after 3 years) towards loss of estate and funeral expenses i.e.
total Rs.33,000/- under both the heads. Likewise, each appellant
is entitled for Rs.44,000/- (40000 + 10% increase after 3 years)
i.e. Rs.1,32,000/- for loss of consortium (spousal, parental and
filial).
19.For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of
compensation payable to the claimants/appellants.
20.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.8,320/- per
month and since at the time of accident the deceased was 35
years old, therefore, in view of the law laid down in the matter of
Pranay Sethi (supra), the income of deceased is required to be
enhanced by 40% towards future prospects, which comes to
Rs.11,648/-(8320+3328). Thus, annual income of deceased for
the purpose of calculating compensation comes to Rs.1,39,776/-
(11648). Out of this amount, one-third is to be deducted towards
personal and living expenses of deceased and after deducting
1/3rd, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.93,184/-
(139776-46592). By applying multiplier of 16, as applied by
Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency, total loss of
dependency would come to Rs.14,90,944/- (93184x16). Besides
this, appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs.44,000/- each
towards spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial
consortium being wife, daughter and mother of the deceased, as
held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Pranay Sethi
(supra) and Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram (supra). They are also
entitled for a sum of Rs.16500/- each for loss of estate and
funeral expenses i.e. Rs.33000/-. Thus, total amount of
compensation comes to Rs.16,55,677/- (14,90,944 + 44000 +
44000 + 44000+ 16500 + 16500). This amount of compensation
shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim
application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in
the impugned award shall remain intact.
21.Any amount already paid to claimants/appellants as
compensation shall be adjusted from total amount of
compensation as calculated above.
22.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 83 days.
23.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned
award stands modified to the extent indicated above.
Digitally
SYED signed
ROSHAN by SYED
ZAMIR ROSHAN
ALI ZAMIR Sd/-
ALI
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Nisha
