Chattisgarh High Court
Kripanath Singh vs Jamuna Singh on 24 April, 2025
1
Digitally signed by
SHUBHAM SINGH
RAGHUVANSHI
Date: 2025.04.29
14:26:01 +0530
2025:CGHC:18614
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1127 of 2019
Kripanath Singh S/o Pran Say Aged About 30 Years R/o Village
Patrapali Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District
Surajpur Chhattisgarh
... Appellant/Owner
versus
1 - Jamuna Singh S/o Lohru Ram Aged About 55 Years R/o
Village Patrapali, Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujnagar,
District Surajpur Chhattisgarh
2 - Kailaso W/o Jamuna Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Village
Patrapali, Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District
Surajpur Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents/Claimants
For Appellant/Owner : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Krishnakant Prajapati,
Advocate on behalf of Mr. D.N.
Prajapati, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
(24.04.2025)
1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 06.04.2019
passed by 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.), in MAC Case No. 16/2018
awarding compensation of Rs.9,37,200/- with interest @ 9% per
annum, in favour of the claimants for their irreparable loss.
2. The averment in the claim petition, is that on 02.12.2016,
Shivpratap Singh (now deceased) was going to weekly market
village Surta by his motorcycle, at that time driver/Appellant
drove the motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG-15-CJ-0512
(offending vehicle) rashly and negligently and collided with
Shivpratap due to which Shivpratap sustained grievous injuries
and died on spot. The report of the accident was lodged based on
which offence was registered. It is stated that on the date of the
accident, age of the deceased was 18 years, he was unmarried
and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month from business and
agriculture. Due to said accident, there is an irreparable loss to
the respondents/claimants. Therefore, the claimants had
preferred an application under Section 166 of the MV Act before
the Tribunal.
3. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence and
documents available on record has awarded total compensation
of Rs.9,37,200/- in favour of the claimant with interest @ 9% per
annum, from the date of application till its realization and
fastened the liability upon Driver cum Owner/Appellant. Hence,
this appeal has been filed by Driver cum Owner/Appellant for
reduction of the compensation.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant challenged
quantum part and submits that the amount of compensation
awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on higher side. He further
submits that looking the numbers of claimants, the deduction
towards dependency would be 1/2 instead of 1/3. Hence, it is
prayed that the appeal of the Driver cum Owner/Appellant may
be allowed and amount of compensation may be reduced
suitably.
5. On the other hand learned Counsel appearing for the
claimants/respondents submits that the amount of
compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper
and requires no interference.
6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the record.
7. In a motor accident claim case, what 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.
8. Now, this Court shall examine as to whether the
compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and
proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the
case.
9. The Claims Tribunal on a close scrutiny of facts and
evidence brought on record, assessed monthly income of the
deceased to Rs.4,500/-, given 40% future prospects, deducted
1/3 income towards personal and living expenses and applied
multiplier of 18 and awarded Rs. 9,07,200/-. Furthermore,
Rs.30,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal in other heads.
Thus, total Rs.9,37,200/- has been awarded in favour of the
claimants/Respondents with interest @ 9% per annum, from the
date of application till its realization.
10. From the evidence, it is clear that there are only two
claimants mother and father of the deceased. Therefore, the
deduction would be 1/2 instead of 1/3 as wrongly held by the
Tribunal. However, in the present case, the Tribunal has
assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500 per month.
The accident occurred on 02.12.2016. As per the notification by
Labour Department, the minimum wages of even an unskilled
labour at that point of time was Rs.6206 per month 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 the amount
comes to Rs 1,04,260/-. There are 2 legal representatives of the
deceased. So deduction would be 1/2 of the income and after
deduction, the amount comes to Rs.52,130. In view of judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 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 and also considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier
would be 18 and after applying the said multiplier, the total loss
of dependency works out to Rs.9,38,340/-. In addition, as per
'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR
Online 2018 SC 189, The claimants would be entitled for
Rs.40,000/- each towards love & affection and spousal
consortium for wife, totalling Rs.80,000. They are also entitled
for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- for
funeral expenses. As such, on being calculated as a whole, the
compensation amount would be more than the amount awarded
by the Tribunal.
11. In such a situation, the argument of the Insurance
Company that the Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation
in favour of the claimants, is not acceptable.
12. Accordingly, the appeal of the Insurance Company being
devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Shubham
