Branch Manager vs Smt. Roshani Dhruv
2025 Latest Caselaw 3916 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Branch Manager vs Smt. Roshani Dhruv on 24 April, 2025

                                   1


                            Digitally signed
                            by BHOLA
                            NATH KHATAI
                            Date:
                            2025.04.30
                            11:29:38 +0530




                                                      2025:CGHC:18613


                                                             NAFR

    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                      MAC No. 511 of 2018

  Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited,
  Branch Office Bathaina Chowk, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District
  Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
                                                         ... Appellant
                             versus

1. Smt. Roshani Dhruv Wd/o Late Dikeshwar Netam Aged About 21
  Years R/o Village And P.O. Puri, P.S. Arjuni, Tahsil And District
  Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

2. Tejendra Kumar Netam S/o Late Dikeshwar Netam, Aged About
  06 Month, Minor Through His Mother Smt. Roshani Dhruv, Wd/o
  Late Dikeshwar Netam, Aged 21 Years (Respondent No.1) R/o
  Village And P.O. Puri, P.S. Arjuni, Tahsil And District Dhamtari,
  Chhattisgarh

3. Fattelal Netam S/o Shri Parau Netam Aged About 45 Years R/o
  Village And P.O. Puri, P.S. Arjuni, Tahsil And District Dhamtari,
  Chhattisgarh

4. Smt. Shanti Bai W/o Fattelal Netam Aged About 42 Years R/o
  Village And P.O. Puri, P.S. Arjuni, Tahsil And District Dhamtari,
  Chhattisgarh

5. Ku. Laxmi Netam D/o Shri Fattelal Netam Aged About 21 Years
  R/o Village And P.O. Puri, P.S. Arjuni, Tahsil And District Dhamtari,
  Chhattisgarh
                                       2

    6. Ku. Lokeshwari D/o Shri Fattelal Netam Aged About 19 Years R/o
      Village And P.O. Puri, P.S. Arjuni, Tahsil And District Dhamtari,
      Chhattisgarh

    7. Smt. Ghanbati Wd/o Late Parau Netam Aged About 62 Years R/o
      Village And P.O. Puri, P.S. Arjuni, Tahsil And District Dhamtari,
      Chhattisgarh

    8. Balram Haldhar S/o Shri Subhas Haldhar Aged About 21 Years
      R/o    P.V.   26   Pakhanjur,   P.S.   Pakhanjur,   District   Kanker,
      Chhattisgarh

    9. Nripen Saha S/o Nimai Saha Aged About 27 Years R/o P.V. 26
      Pakhanjur, P.S. Pakhanjur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh
                                                      ... Respondent(s)


For Appellant            : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate
For Respondents 8 & : Mr. D. Kushwaha, Advocate
9


             Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.

Order on Board

24.04.2025

1. This is an Insurer's appeal filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 14.12.2017 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Dhamtari (C.G.) in Claim Case No.198/2016.

2. The facts relevant for disposal of this appeal in brief are that on 30.07.2016 at about 3:30 p.m., Dikeshwar Netam (deceased) was returning to his village Puri on his motorcycle after working in Union Bank, Dhamtari. When he reached between Sankra turning and Puri turning on National Highway No.30, respondent No.8 Balram Haldhar driving the offending vehicle i.e. Pickup bearing registration No. CG 07 CA 5849 rashly and negligently dashed his motorcycle,

as a result of which, Dikeshwar Netam suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. The claimants who are the wife, son, parents, sisters & grand-mother of the deceased preferred a claim application before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.49,49,000/- under various heads. Learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence available on record, award a total compensation of Rs.50,33,026/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its realization in favour of the claimants and against the appellant-insurance company, against which the present appeal has been filed for exonerating the insurance company from its liability.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.20,115 is excessive as the Tribunal has taken the said income on the basis of only one month salary in which officiating pay was given to the deceased. Therefore, the compensation calculated by the Tribunal on the basis of the said income is excessive and the same needs to be modified suitably.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 8 & 9 i.e. the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle submits that in the facts and circumstances of case, the impugned award regarding liability passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not require any interference.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. In a motor accident claim case, what is 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.

7. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

8. From the record it is evident that the deceased was working as a Peon in Union Bank, Dhamtari Branch. His pay slips for the months from April, 2016 to July, 2016 are produced as Ex.P-9 to Ex.P-12. As per Ex.P-12, his salary for the month of July, 2016 was Rs.20,115 which included officiating pay of Rs.2,800 which was paid for that month only. The deceased was given additional charge for which he was paid Rs.2,800 as officiating pay only for the month of July, 2016. The said officiating pay was not given to the deceased in Exs. P-9 to P-11. Since the officiating pay is an additional payment for some period which is not paid every month, it cannot be included in the monthly income. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is taken at Rs.17,315 (20115- 2800) i.e. annual income would be Rs.2,07,780.

9. The deceased was an unmarried young man of 25 years. Hence, as per National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the future prospect would be 50%. After adding 50% of the income towards future prospects i.e. Rs.103890, the amount comes to Rs.3,11,670/-.

10. From the annual income of the deceased, there will be statutory deduction towards income tax. The income tax slab for the year 2016-2017 was as follows:

                                     Taxable income       I. Tax
      Up to 2,50,000         - Nil
      2,50,001 to 5,00,000 - 10%         61,670           6167

11. In view of the same, taxable income of the deceased comes to Rs.61,670 (311670-250000) on which 10% income tax would be applicable which is 6,167. After deduction of income tax, the annual income comes to Rs.3,05,503.

12. The respondents 4 & 5 are the sisters of the deceased who were

major at the time of accident and their parents i.e. the respondents 3 & 4 are alive. Similarly, respondent No.7 is the grand-mother of the deceased whose son & daughter-in-law i.e. the parents of the deceased are alive. Therefore, the Tribunal has not considered the respondents 5 to 7 to be dependent upon the deceased which seems to be proper. The Tribunal has taken only 4 claimants i.e. the wife, son and parents of the deceased to be dependent upon the deceased and rightly held 1/4th of the income towards personal expenses. In the light of the judgments 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, National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, the compensation is being recomputed as below:-

Sl.                Particulars                    Calculation
No.
1.    Monthly income of the deceased                         17315
2.    Yearly income                                         207780
3.    Future    prospects(50%        of   the               103890
      income)
4.    Total                                                 311670
5.    Income Tax                                                6,167
6.    Annual income (after deduction of                     305503
      Income Tax)
7.    Personal expenses     (1/4th of the 76375.75 in round
      income)                             figure          76376
8.    Annual loss of dependency                             229127

9. Total loss of dependency (applying 229127 x 18= 4124286 multiplier of 18)

10. Funeral Expenses 15000

11. Loss of estate 15000

12. Parental consortium, spousal 40000 x 7 = 2800000 consortium and love & affection

(Rs.40,000 to each claimant) Total compensation Rs.44,34,286

13. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs.44,34,286/-.

14. Resultantly, this appeal of the Insurance Company is allowed. The impugned award stands modified to the extent that the appellant/claimants shall be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.44,34,286 instead of Rs.50,33,026 as awarded by the Tribunal. The remaining part of the impugned award shall remain intact.

15. The records of the Tribunal along with a copy of this order be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any.

Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

Khatai