Smt. Hiramuni vs Mahesh Kumar Pandey
2025 Latest Caselaw 1329 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Hiramuni vs Mahesh Kumar Pandey on 21 January, 2025

                                     1


                        Digitally signed
                        by BHOLA
                        NATH KHATAI
                        Date:
                        2025.01.23
                        11:21:29 +0530




                                               2025:CGHC:3661
                                                              NAFR

      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                     MAC No. 1062 of 2016

1. Smt. Hiramuni W/o Late Bir Bahadur, Aged About 36 Years R/o
  Village - Lokhandi, Tahsil- Jashpurnagar, District- Jashpur, Civil
  And Revenue District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
2. Minor Jeetbahan S/o Late Bir Bahadhur, Aged About 16 Years
  Through Next Friend Herself Mother Smt. Hiramuni, R/o Village -
  Lokhandi, Tahsil- Jashpurnagar, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh,
  Civil And Revenue District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
3. Minor Laxmi D/o Late Bir Bahadur, Aged About 14 Years Through
  Next Friend Herself Mother Smt. Hiramuni, R/o Village- Lokhandi,
  Tahsil- Jashpurnagar, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, Civil And
  Revenue District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
4. Minor Shivkumar D/o Late Bir Bahadhur, Aged About 9 Years
  Through Next Friend Herself Mother Smt. Hiramuni, R/o Village-
  Lokhandi, Tahsil- Jashpurnagar, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh,
  Civil And Revenue District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
5. Minor Ku. Janki D/o Late Bir Bahadhur, Aged About 3 Years
  Through Next Friend Herself Mother Smt. Hiramuni, R/o Village-
  Lokhandi, Tahsil- Jashpurnagar, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh,
  Civil And Revenue District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
                                                      ... Appellants
                                versus
1. Mahesh Kumar Pandey S/o Satyanarayan Pandey, R/o Village/
  Post Lokhandi, Tahsil And District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ...........
  ... Owner
                                        2

     2. Sandeep Kumar S/o Sundarlal, Aged About 22 Years Occupation-
       Driver, R/o Village/ Post Lokhandi, Tahsil And District- Jashpur,
       Chhattisgarh ................ Driver
     3. The National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office,
       Priyadarshani Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ............... Insurer
                                                         ... Respondent(s)

For Appellants : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 21/01/2025

1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 29.04.2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur (C.G.), in M.A.C.T. No. 59/2014 awarding compensation of Rs.5,35,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, in favour of the appellant/claimants for their irreparable loss.

2. The gist of the claim before the Tribunal, in brief, was that on 28.05.2014 at about 6:30 p.m, deceased Bir Bahadur was walking on the road in front of his house in village Lokhandi. At that time, respondent No.2 Sandeep Kumar driving the offending vehicle i.e. Tata Magic bearing registration No. CG 14 F 0131 rashly and negligently, first hit the driver of TVS moped Rajkumar and then hit Bir Bahadur and overturned, due to which, Bir Bahadur got stuck in the offending vehicle. The villagers lifted the Tata Magic and took out Bir Bahadur but by then he had died. Upon report being made in this regard, crime was registered against driver Sandeep Kumar at PS Jashpur, District Jashpur (CG).

3. It was claimed that at the time of incident, the deceased was aged

about 40 years and was earning Rs.200 per day i.e. Rs.6,000 per month from labour and agriculture work. Due to the casual death of Bir Bahadur, there is an irreparable loss to the appellant/claimants who are the wife and children of the deceased. Therefore, the claimants preferred an application before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs. 20,25,000/-.

4. Learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents brought on record, assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000 per month i.e. Rs.36,000 per annum as no documentary evidence was brought on record regarding his income. Taking into account the number of claimants, 1/3rd of the income was deducted towards personal expenses. Considering the age of the deceased to be 40 years at the time of incident, multiplier of 15 was applied and the total loss of dependency worked out to Rs.3,60,000. Apart from this, Rs.1,75,000/- has been given under other heads. Accordingly, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.5,35,000/- in favour of the claimants with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal is for enhancement.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the income assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.3,000 per month is much less than even the minimum wages of an unskilled labour at that time and therefore, it needs to be enhanced suitably. He submits that considering the number of claimants, deduction towards personal expenses should be 1/4th of the income instead of 1/3rd. He further submits that the Tribunal has not considered future prospects and the compensation given under other heads also needs to be enhanced suitably.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 opposes the submission made by the counsel for appellants and submits that in the facts and circumstances of case, the

compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement.

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

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. Though it was claimed that at the time of accident the deceased was earning Rs.6,000 per month from labour and agriculture work, no documentary evidence regarding his income has been brought on record. The accident occurred on 28.05.2014 and the minimum wages of even an unskilled labour at that point of time was Rs.5468. Hence, the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.5468 per month as minimum wages at that time instead of Rs.3000 as held by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the annual income comes to Rs.65,616. The Tribunal has not considered future prospects while computing compensation. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the future prospects would be 25% of the income. After adding 25% towards future prospect i.e. Rs.16404, the amount comes to Rs.82,020.

11. There are five claimants who are the wife and children of the deceased, so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4th of the income instead of 1/3rd as wrongly held by the Tribunal. Hence, after deduction of 1/4th personal expenses, the income comes to Rs.61,515. 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 to be 40 years, the multiplier would be 15 as rightly held by the Tribunal. After applying the said multiplier, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.9,22,725/- (61515 x 15). The claimants are also entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, each of the claimants are further entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium and love and affection totaling Rs.2,00,000/-. Accordingly, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation in the following manner:-

                            Heads                      Calculation

         Compensation towards dependency                Rs.9,22,725
         Towards loss of estate                           Rs. 15,000
         Towards Loss of consortium & Love              Rs. 2,00,000
         and affection to the claimants @
         Rs.40,000/- each
         Funeral Expenses                                 Rs. 15,000
            Total compensation Awarded                Rs. 11,52,725

12. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs.11,52,725/- from which after deduction of Rs.5,35,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhanced compensation would be Rs.6,17,725/-.

13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants shall be entitled for the enhanced compensation of Rs.6,17,725/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. Accordingly, the impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.

14. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing "the enhanced amount" in this appeal as against the award made by the Claims Tribunal. 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 reside. Sd

Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai