Chattisgarh High Court
Roshni Bai vs Janki Yadav on 23 April, 2025
1
Digitally
SOURABH
signed by
SOURABH
PATEL
2025:CGHC:18391
PATEL Date:
NAFR
2025.04.24
16:56:50
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 26 of 2019
1. Roshni Bai W/o Master Singh Aged About 60 Years R/o Village
Mahuatikra, Tahsil Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
2. Brijbahadur Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Mahuatikra,
Tahsil Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellants
versus
1. Janki Yadav S/o Mohanlal Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o
Village- Phuta, Kharadand, Police Station- Darima, District-
Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
2. Pandit Manjhwar S/o Krihsna Manjhwar Aged About 22 Years
R/o Village Phuta, Kharadand, Police Station- Darima, District-
Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate.
For Respondents : None.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.
Order on Board
(23.04.2025)
1. This appeal arises out of the impugned award dated 28.06.2018
passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Ambikapur, District-Surguja (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 58/2017
awarding a compensation of Rs. 55,000/-, in favour of the
appellants/claimants for their irreparable loss.
2. The averment in the claim petition, in brief, is that on
11.10.2016 at about 11.30 am, when Mahesh Singh (now
deceased) was going to village Kusu from village Mahuatikra in
his motorcycle and when he reached in the vicinity of Kusu's
pond, respondent No. 2 (Pandit Manjhwar) was driving the
offending vehicle i.e., Tractor bearing registration No. CG-15-
AE-1995 in a rash and negligently manner coming from the
opposite side and dashed in the motorcycle of Mahesh Singh
(deceased), due to which Mahesh Singh suffered grievous
injuries and died on the spot. After that, a report was lodged
based on the above stated offence. It is stated that on the date
of the incident, the age of the deceased was 22 years who was
involved in an agricultural work and was earning Rs. 10,000/-
per month from his work. Due to the casual death of the son
and brother of the appellants/claimants, there is an irreparable
loss to the appellants. Therefore, the appellants preferred an
application to claim a total compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for
their irreparable loss.
3. On the basis of the statement of Brijbahadur (AW-1), who is the
brother of deceased (Mahesh Singh), the learned Claims
Tribunal concluded in paragraph 15 of the award impugned
that AW-1 admitted in his statement that he and his mother
used to take care of the deceased, therefore, the claimants did
not suffer any loss of dependency and awarded Rs.15,000/- for
funeral expenses and Rs.40,000 towards love and affection.
Thus, total compensation of Rs. 55,000/- has been awarded, in
favour of the appellants/claimants.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the
family of deceased owned about 10 acres of agricultural land
and all the family members contributed in an agricultural work
and also involved in a work of agricultural laborers, therefore,
the claimants have pleaded the income of the deceased as
Rs.10,000/- per month but the learned Claims Tribunal has
erred in not considering the income of deceased as Rs.10,000/-
and also not awarded any compensation under other heads.
Learned counsel for the appellants prayed for determining the
income of deceased as Rs.10,000/- and 40% future prospects
should be added to the income including compensation under
other heads which also needs to be awarded suitably. Therefore,
this appeal may be allowed.
5. No one appeared on behalf of the respondents during final
hearing of this case.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
award impugned including the record of the Tribunal.
7. In the case in hand, the brother of the deceased, Brijbahadur
Singh as well as Jai Singh (Aw-2) have been examined from the
claimants side. It has been clearly stated that the family of
deceased owned 10 acres of agricultural land. Brijbahadur
Singh has stated in paragraph 9 of his cross-examination that
the deceased did not have any bank account in his name and he
as well as their mother used to take care of the deceased but
from this statement, it cannot be concluded that the claimants
side used to take care of him completely. Since the deceased
was unmarried, it can also be assumed that he was being taken
care of by other family members. Brijbahadur Singh has clearly
stated that the deceased was also used to help him in farming
and they all used to earn their livelihood by doing farming as
their father has already died. This statement has also been
corroborated from the statement of his consin Jai Singh (AW-2).
According to which, apart from farming, the deceased also
involved in a work of labour in his free time and the said fact
could not be refuted.
8. In this situation, in absence of any proof regarding his income,
as per the notification by Labour Department, the minimum
wages of un-skilled worker at the time of accident i.e.,
11.10.2016 was Rs.6,206/-. Hence, the income of the deceased
is assessed at Rs.6,206 i.e., 74,472/- per annum. As per
National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards future
prospects i.e. Rs. 29,788/-, the annual income of the deceased
comes to Rs. 1,04,260/-.
9. The deceased was aged about 22 years and was unmarried and
the claimants are the mother and brother of the deceased so
deduction towards personal and caring expenses would be 1/2
i.e., 52,130/-, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 52,130/-. 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. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC
680 considering the age of the deceased, after applying
multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.
9,38,340/-. The claimants are further entitled for loss of estate
Rs. 15,000/-, for funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- and as per
'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR
Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for loss
of love and affection Rs. 40,000/- each i.e. Rs.80,000/-.
Therefore, the claimants would become entitled for total
compensation of Rs. 10,48,340/-. Thus, the claimants are
entitled for compensation in the following manner:-
S.No. Heads Calculation
01 Compensation towards Rs. 9,38,340/-
dependency
02 Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
03 Towards Love and affection to Rs. 80,000/-
all the two claimants @ Rs.
40,000/-
04 Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total compensation Awarded Rs. 10,48,340/-
10. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 10,48,340/-.
After deducting Rs. 55,000/- as awarded by the tribunal, the
enhancement would be Rs. 9,93,340/-. The enhanced amount
will carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
enhancement of the award till its realization and rest of the
conditions shall remain intact.
11. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellants is partly allowed to
the extent indicated hereinabove.
12. 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 below. 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 resides.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Sourabh P.
