Chattisgarh High Court
Niranjan vs Sunil Kumar on 9 April, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
Page No.1
2025:CGHC:16664
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1104 of 2020
1 - Niranjan S/o Mahigal Aged About 58 Years Occupation - Labourer, R/o
Village Mohanpur, Tahsil Udaipur, Police Station Lakhanpur, District
Surguja,Chhattisgarh.
2 - Tuleshwar Singh S/o Niranjan Aged About 25 Years Occupation -
Labourer, R/o Village Mohanpur, Tahsil Udaipur, Police Station Lakhanpur,
District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - Sunil Kumar S/o Vijay Kumar Aged About 27 Years Junadih, Police
Station And Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of
OffendingVehicle)
2 - Secretary Surguja Sahri Sarvajanik Yatayat Society, Ambikapur,
Collectorate Campus, E- Service Center, Ambikapur, District Surguja,
Chhattisgarh.(Owner Of Offending Vehicle)
3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager,
Branch Ambikapur, Near Ambika Petrol Pump, Ambedkar Chowk, Banaras
Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : None.
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Judgment On Board
09/04/2025
1. Notice sent to respondent No. 2 is reported to be awaited.
2. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that liability to
satisfy the amount of award is upon respondent No.3 Insurance
Company. The liability fastened upon respondent No.3 by the
learned Claims Tribunal is not disputed by counsel for
respondent No.3. Hence, the service of notice upon respondent
No.2 is dispensed with.
3. With the consent of the parties, this appeal is heard finally.
4. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur District Surguja (for short
'the Claims Tribunal') vide award dated 22.02.2020 passed in
Claim Case No.108/2019.
5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 26.04.2018, Gedi Bai
(since deceased) was returning to village Mohanpur from
village Andhla in CT Bus bearing registration No. CG15-AB-
0440 (for short 'the offending vehicle'), when Gedi Bai was
about to de-board from the bus near Jajga Turn, the driver of
bus suddenly started the bus as a result Gedi Bai fell down on
ground, sustained injuries on her head, back and leg. She
succumbed to injuries on spot. Accident was reported to Police
Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja based upon which offence
under Section 304A of IPC was registered against driver of
offending vehicle. Claimants/appellants herein filed an
application seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-
under various heads on the ground that on the date of accident,
deceased was working as Labourer, earning Rs.4,000/- per
month and they were dependent on earning of deceased.
6. Non-applicant No.1 in his reply has rejected all the allegations
of the applicants and has stated that the applicants have filed
this claim application on false and fabricated grounds. Apart
from this, non-applicant No.1 had a valid and effective driving
license to drive the bus on the date of the accident, therefore,
application of claimants so far as it relates to non-applicant
No.1 be dismissed.
7. Non-applicant No.2 filed reply to application and denied the
entire pleadings made in application and sought dismissal of
application on the ground that application filed by the claimants
is based on false and frivolous grounds and the compensation
claimed is highly exaggerated.
8. Non-applicant No.3- Insurance Company also filed its reply
denying the averments made in application. It was pleaded that
on the date of accident, the bus was being operated by non-
applicant No.2 without there being valid documents. On the
date of accident, non-applicant No.1 did not have a valid and
effective driving license, as such there was breach of conditions
of insurance policy.
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 violation of any
conditions of insurance policy; assessed the income of the
deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month and consequently, allowed
claim application in part and awarded compensation of
Rs.3,86,800/- along with interest @ 9% p.a.
10. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellant submits that the
learned claims tribunal erred in assessing the income of the
deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month only overlooking to the
wage rate fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum
Wages Act, 1948 and prevalent on the date of accident.
Nothing has been awarded to appellant No.2, who is the son of
deceased, towards loss of consortium. Hence, he prays that
the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal
be enhanced suitably.
11.Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that submission
of counsel for appellant with respect to income of deceased is
not correct. In the pleadings and the statement of witnesses
recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal, it has come that the
income of deceased on the date of accident was Rs.4,000/- per
month. Learned Claims Tribunal has accepted the pleadings
made in the application and the statement of the witnesses with
respect to income of deceased to be Rs.4,000/- per month. He
further submits that the amount of compensation awarded by
learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper in the facts of the
case, which does not call for any interference.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
of Claims Tribunal.
13. So far as the submission of learned counsel for appellant with
respect of income of deceased concerned, perusal of the
pleadings made in application would show that appellants
/claimants in their claim application have pleaded the income of
the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month i.e. Rs.48,000/- per
annum. Witness PW-1 Tuleshwar Singh in his examination-in-
chief, which is submitted in the shape of an affidavit under Order
18 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, has stated the income of
deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month. In the aforementioned facts
of the case, I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the
learned Claims Tribunal with respect of income of deceased as
Rs.4,000/- per month. Submission of counsel for appellants for
the aforementioned reasons is not sustainable and accordingly,
it is hereby repelled.
14.From the pleadings in application, it is evident that deceased
was aged about 60 years and she was not in permanent
employment. In the postmortem report (Ex.P-4) age of
deceased is mentioned as 60 years. Thus, the Claims Tribunal
was correct in adding 10% to assessed income of deceased on
account of loss of future prospects. As there are total two
dependent members, who are appellants before this Court,
deduction of one-third towards personal expenses of deceased
is correct. This Court also finds no illegality in applying
multiplier of "9", because deceased was 60 years of age at the
time of the accident and as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhit Transport
Corporation & anr, reported in (2009) 6, SCC 121, for the age
group 56 to 60 years proper multiplier is '9'. Award of
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral
expenses is also as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi,
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.
15.However, perusal of impugned award would show that the
Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of
consortium to appellant No.2, son of deceased. In case of
Magma General Insurance Company Limited versus Nanu
Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, reported in (2018) 18
SCC 130, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the husband,
children and parents each are entitled for Rs,40,000/- towards
loss of consortium. In case at hand, there is no dispute that
appellant is the son of deceased who died in a road accident
and therefore, appellant No.2 is also entitled for Rs.40,000/-
towards loss of parental consortium. It is ordered accordingly.
16.For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of
compensation payable to the claimants/appellants.
17.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.4,000/- per
month and after adding 10% towards future prospects because
on the date of accident, age of deceased was 60 years working
as labourer, the monthly income of deceased would come to
Rs.4,400/- (4000+10% of 4000) and annual income would be
Rs.52,800/-(4400x12). After deducting one-third towards
personal and living expenses of deceased, as rightly deducted
by the Claims Tribunal, annual loss of dependency would come
to Rs.35,200/-(52800-17600). As the deceased was 60 years,
multiplier of 9 is applicable and therefore, applying multiplier of
9, the loss of dependency would be Rs.3,16,800/- (35200x9).
Besides this, appellant No.1 and 2 are also entitled for a sum of
Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of spousal consortium and
parental consortium being husband and son of 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 Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of funeral expenses. Now total
amount of compensation for which appellants are entitled for
comes to Rs.426800/-(316800+40000+40000+15000+15000).
This amount of compensation shall carry interest @7.5% p.a.
from the date of application till its realization. Any amount
already paid to claimants/ appellants as compensation shall be
adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated
above. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned
award shall remain intact.
18.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned
SYED award stands modified to the extent indicated above.
ROSHAN
ZAMIR
ALI Sd/-
Digitally
signed by (Parth Prateem Sahu)
SYED
ROSHAN Judge
ZAMIR ALI
nisha
