Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Krishna vs Rajkumar on 24 April, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2025:CGHC:18534
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 916 of 2020
1 - Smt. Krishna W/o Lt. Dr. B.L. Gupta, Aged About 53 Years
2 - Sanjeev S/o Lt. Dr. B.L. Gupta, Aged About 37 Years
3 - Rajeev S/o Lt. Dr. B.L. Gupta Aged About 36 Years
4 - Ku. Renu D/o Lt. Dr. B.L. Gupta, Aged About 31 Years
All are Permanently R/o House No. AL-116, in Front Of Jain International
School, Aasma Colony, Village And Post Sakri, P.S. Chakarbhata, District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
--- Appellants
versus
1 - Rajkumar S/o Gopi Valecha, R/o Chakarbhata Camp, P.S. Chakarbhata,
District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G.-10-C-5514)
2 - Smt. Chanda, W/o Mukesh Mathani, R/o Main Road Chakarbhata, P.S.
Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G.-10-
C-5514)
3 - Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Officer
Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle No. C.G.-10-C-
5514)
--- Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. Satyendra Shrivas, Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate
For Respondent No.2 : None present though served.
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of
Digitally
signed by Mr. R.N. Pusty, Advovcate
BALRAM
BALRAM PRASAD
PRASAD DEWANGAN
DEWANGAN Date:
2025.04.28
16:50:13
+0530
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order On Board
24/04/2025
1. Heard on I.A. No.1, which is an application for condonation of delay of
397 days in filing the appeal.
2. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposes the application and the
submission made on behalf of appellants. He however, submits that if
this Court considers to condone the delay then it may be ordered that
appellants will not be entitled for the interest for delayed period. In
support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision in case
of Lakkamma Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in
(2021) 20 SCC 797.
3. Considering the pleadings made in the application as also the
submission of learned counsel for respective parties I find it
appropriate to allow the I.A. No.1, and condone the delay in filing this
appeal. Accordingly, the I.A. No.1 is allowed and the delay of 397 days
in filing this appeal is condoned. The appeal is admitted for hearing.
4. Learned counsel for respective parties submits that the liability to
indemnify the amount of compensation is fastened upon respondent
No.3/Insurance Company, hence with the consent of the parties, the
case is heard finally at motion stage.
5. Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') seeking
enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Additional
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (for short
'the Claims Tribunal') vide award dated 02.03.2019 passed in Claim
Case No.307/2017 thereby allowing application in part and awarded
Rs.62,08,979/- as compensation in a death case.
6. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 05.04.2017 at
about 12.30 o'clock at Main Road Tifra, Police Station Sirgitti, District -
Bilaspur, respondent No.1 by driving the offending vehicle Swaraj
Mazda (Metador) bearing registration No.C.G.-10-C/5514 in a rash
and negligent manner dashed the motor cycle of Dr. B.L. Gupta due to
which he suffered severe injuries and succumbed to the injuries.
7. Appellants/claimants being the legal heirs of deceased, filed an
application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total
compensation of Rs.2,46,70,000/- pleading therein that at the time of
accident, the deceased was 54 years of age, posted as Senior
Veterinary Doctor at Government Veterinary Hospital and was getting
monthly salary of Rs.1,30,000/-. It was pleaded that the appellants
were dependents upon the deceased. Claimants had also sought
compensation under all other heads as are available to them like loss
of future income, for love and affection and loss of consortium etc.
8. Respondents No.1 and 2 remained ex-parte before the Claims
Tribunal.
9. Non-applicant No.3/Insurer of the offending truck denied entire
allegation made in the claim application. It was pleaded that the
accident occurred due to self negligence of the motorcyclist, who was
driving the said motor cycle without having valid driving licence. The
insurer of the motor cycle was not made as party respondents. It was
further pleaded that offending vehicle was being driven in violation of
insurance policy, without any permit and fitness. Application was filed
exaggerating the amount of compensation. The respondent No.3 is not
liable to indemnify the insured.
10. Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by
respective parties, the learned Claims Tribunal held that accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-
applicant No.1, due to which deceased suffered grievous injuries and
died. Breach of Policy condition was not found to be proved. Tribunal
allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of
Rs.62,08,979/- along with interest @ 8% per annum, fastened liability
upon non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company to pay the amount of
compensation.
11. Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal
erred in deducting the amount of Rs.24,543/- towards house rent
allowance from the annul salary of the deceased. He also contended
that appellants No.2 to 4, who are the children of the deceased, have
not been awarded loss of parental consortium as held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company
Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & ors reported in (2018)
18 SCC 130. He prays that amount of compensation be suitably
enhanced.
12. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposes
the submission of learned counsel for appellants. He would submit that
the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation on
each and every head in the facts of the case. It is submitted that the
impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is based on
proper appreciation of facts and evidence brought on record by the
respective parties, which does not call for any interference.
13. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the
documents placed on record.
14. The learned counsel for the appellants has raised short issue of non-
awarding the amount towards loss of consortium to the appellants
No.2 to 4, who are children of the deceased and further erroneous
deduction of Rs.24,543/- of house rent allowance which was being
paid to deceased from the annual salary, while computing the total
annual income of the deceased.
15. So far as the grant of loss of consortium to the children is concerned, it
is well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nanu Ram alias
Chuhru Ram (supra), in which it has held that the consortium to be of
three types i.e. loss of spousal consortium, loss of parental consortium
and loss of filial consortium. The children of the deceased are entitled
for compensation under the head of parental consortium @
Rs.40,000/- each. The learned Claims Tribunal has erred in not
awarding the amount of Rs.40,000/- each to respondents No.2 to 4
towards loss of parental consortium, which is erroneous in the facts of
the case and as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (supra), it is ordered that the appellant
No.2 to 4 shall be entitled for loss of parental consortium of
Rs.40,000/- each.
16. So far as the deduction of Rs. 24,543/- towards house rent allowance
from the salary of the deceased, the inclusion of allowances paid to
the deceased government servant in the salary, has been considered
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Meenakshi Vs. Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1872. In
the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the
decision rendered in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nalini
(Special Leave to Appeal C No. 4230 of 2019 decided on 11 th July,
2024) held that allowances under the heads of transport allowance,
house rent allowance, provident fund loan, provident fund and special
allowance ought to be added while considering the basic salary of the
victim/deceased to arrive at the dependency factor and held thus :-
"10. Therefore, components of house rent allowance,
flexible benefit plan and company contribution to provident
fund have to be included in the salary of the deceased
while applying the component of rise in income by future
prospects to determine the dependency factor. The
Accident Claims Tribunal was justified in factoring these
components into the salary of the deceased, before
applying 50% rise by future prospects due to future
prospects, while calculating the total compensation
payable to the appellant."
17. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned
Claims Tribunal erred in deducting Rs.24,543/- from the salary of the
deceased for the purpose of calculating the amount of dependency,
hence, the said finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal is set-
aside and it is held that house rent allowance of Rs.24,543/- is to be
added in the annual salary of deceased for the purpose of calculating
the loss of dependency. It is ordered accordingly.
18. The learned Claims Tribunal after deducting Rs.89,662/- towards
income tax and Rs. 24,543/- of house rent allowance from the annual
salary of Rs.10,84,795/-, assessed the annual dependency at Rs.
9,70,000/-. Therefore, by adding the house rent allowance of Rs.
24,543/- in the income of the deceased, the total loss of annual
dependency works out to Rs. 9,94,543/-.
19. Addition of 15% towards future prospects, deduction of ½ towards
personal expenses and application of multiplier of 11 has been
properly applied by by the learned Claims Tribunal in the facts of the
case, which does not call for any interference.
20. Learned Claims Tribunal has also awarded Rs.15,000/- each towards
loss of estate and funeral expenses, which also does not call for any
interference. Learned learned Claims Tribunal has awarded
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium to appellant No.1 only,
whereas as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nanu
Ram alias Chuhru Ram (supra), each claimants are entitled for
Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, it is ordered that appellants No.2 to 4 are also
entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium.
21. For the forgoing discussions the amount of compensation to
be awarded to the appellants required recomputation, which is as
under :-
SN Head Amount (in Rs.).
1. Annual income : 9,94,543.00
2. Addition of 15% towards : 9,94,543.00 + 1,49,181.00 = 11,43,724.00
future prospects
3. ½ deduction towards : 11,43,724.00 - 5,71,862.00 = 5,71,862.00
personal expenses
4. Loss of dependency after : 62,90,484.00
application of multiplier of
5. For loss of consortium to : 1,60,000.00
(spousal & parental) of
Rs.40,000/- each
6. For loss of estate : 15,000.00
7. For funeral expenses : 15,000.00
Total compensation : 64,80,484.00
22. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be
entitled for total compensation of Rs.64,80,484.00. Any amount paid to
the appellant as compensation as per impugned award shall be
adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @
8% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization.
Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain
intact.
23. It is further directed that in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Lakkamma (supra), the appellants will not be
entitled for the interest on the additional amount of compensation for
the delayed period, which is of 397 days.
24. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned
stands modified to the extent indicated above.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Balram
