Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Mamta vs Proprietor- Jagdamba Steela And ... on 31 January, 2025
-1-
Digitally
signed by
REKHA SINGH
2025:CGHC:5899
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 756 of 2020
1 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Branch
Office Near Sarla Villa, Shanti Palace, Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, Tahsil And
District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
--- Appellant
versus
1 - Smt. Mamta Wd/o Babulal Aged About 35 Years Caste Panika, R/o Village
Dhumabhatha, Tahsil And Police Station Baramkela, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2 - Minor Manish S/o Late Babulal Aged About 10 Years Occupation Student
Through His Mother Smt. Mamta , Wd/o Babulal (Respondent No. 01), Caste
Panika, R/o Village Dhumabhatha, Tahsil And Police Station Baramkela, District
Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
3 - Proprietor Jagdamba Steel And Powertech R/o Near City Kotwali Thana Road,
Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh
4 - Smt. Usha D/o Late Babulal Aged About 30 Years W/o Sahnidas, Caste Panika,
Occupation Housewife, R/o Village Sariya , Tahsil Baramkela , District Raigarh
Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
5 - Devnandan Sai S/o Ratiram Sai Aged About 46 Years Occupation Driver,
Permanent R/o Village Bdhiya Dongari, Police Station Bagbahar, District Jashpur
Chhattisgarh. Present Address Deendayal Colony, Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District :
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
and
1 - Smt. Mamta W/o Late Babulal Aged About 35 Years Caste- Panika, R/o Village-
Dhumabhatha, Tahsil And Police Station- Baramkela, District- Raigarh, (C.G.).,
District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2 - Minor Manish S/o Late Shri Babulal Aged About 10 Years Occupation Student,
Through Legal Guardian Her Mother Smt. Mamta Widow Of Late Babulal, Caste-
Panika, R/o Village- Dhumabhatha, Tahsil And Police Station- Baramkela, District-
Raigarh, (C.G.)., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - Proprietor- Jagdamba Steela And Powertech Occupation Driver, Parmanent R/o
Vill.- Badhiya Dongari, P.S. Bagbahar, Distt. Jashpur, C.G. At Present R/o Dindayal
Caloni Raigarh, (C.G.)., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2 - United India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Near Shanti Pailace Sarala
Bila Chakradhar Nager Raigarh, C.G., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
3 - Smt. Usha D/o Late Babulal W/o Sahanidas Caste- Panika, Age Of 30 Years,
Occupation House Wife, R/o Village- Sariya, Tahsil Baramkela, Distt.- Raigarh,
(C.G.)., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
4 - Devnandan Sai S/o Ratiram Sai Aged About 46 Years Occupation Driver,
Parmanent R/o Vill.- Badhiya Dongari, P.S. Bagbahar, Distt. Jashpur, C.G. At
Present R/o Dindayal Caloni Raigarh, (C.G.)., Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Appellant/Insurance Company : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate
For Appellants/Claimants in MAC No.934/2020 : Mr. Ravi Kumar Banjare, Advocate holding
the brief of Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal,
Advocate
For other respondents : None appears
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
31.01.2025
1) Heard.
2) Both appeals arise out of the award passed by the Seventh Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Claim Case No.112/2018
dated 05.02.2020, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal passed an award of
Rs.33,39,979/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of application.
3) In MAC No.756 of 2020, the Appellant/Insurance Company has moved an
application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC and has placed service book
of the deceased to prove his date of birth. According to the document, the
date of birth of the deceased is 07.06.1957 and on the date of the accident
i.e. 13.09.2018, he was more than 61 years of age.
4) The Insurance Company has filed this appeal on the ground that the higher
multiplier of 9 has been applied by the learned Tribunal and 15% towards
future prospects was wrongly added on the amount of dependency,
whereas, the Claimants have filed MAC No.934 of 2020 for enhancement of
compensation.
5) The facts of the present case are that the deceased Babulal was posted at
Janpad Panchayat, Baramkela as a Time Keeper. On 13.09.2018 at about
2:30 p.m. while the deceased was going on his motorbike from Raigarh to
Village Dhumabhatha, the driver of the Trailer bearing registration
No.C.G.13/L-7131, driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, dashed the
motorbike of the deceased. Consequently, the deceased sustained grievous
injuries and succumbed to death.
6) The Claimants who are wife and minor son of the deceased filed a Claim
Case claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs.70,56,688/-. The
Claimants pleaded that at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased
was 48 years and he was getting a salary of Rs.40,516/- per month. The
Insurance Company filed its reply and denied the contents of the claim Case.
The driver and owner also filed their reply. An officer of the department of the
deceased was examined as a witness namely, Sameer Pradhan (A.W.-1),
who proved the salary slip of the deceased. A suggestion was given by the
Insurance Company with regard to the date of birth/age of the deceased but
in the absence of the service records, it was not replied to by the said
witness.
7) Learned Tribunal after appreciating the documentary as well as oral
evidence held his notional income to the tune of Rs.4,73,910/-; deducted
1/3rd for personal expenses and assessed annual dependency to the tune of
Rs.3,15,940/-. 15% of total dependency was added for future prospects. As
the age of the deceased was pleaded 57 years, therefore, a multiplier of 9
was applied. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- for funeral
expenses; Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate; Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium
and thus, a total amount of Rs.33,39,979/- was awarded.
8) Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would
submit that as the age of the deceased according to the service record was
more than 61 years at the time of the accident therefore, the learned Tribunal
wrongly applied the multiplier of 9. He would further submit that the
Claimants were not entitled to get 15% of total dependency for future
prospects and thus, he would pray to allow the application moved under
Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC.
9) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Claimants would
oppose the submissions made by Mr. Gupta. He would submit that
Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium to Claimant No.2/son of the deceased has
not been awarded by the learned Tribunal. He would further submit that the
learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation. He would contend that the
Insurance Company failed to produce the service record to prove the date of
birth of the deceased before the learned Tribunal and at the appellate stage,
it should not be allowed.
10) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
records.
11)A suggestion was given by the Insurance Company to the witness namely,
Sameer Pradhan who appeared as AW-1 with regard to the date of birth and
the age of the deceased but the same was not answered in the absence of
records. The Insurance Company has filed a true copy of the service record
of the deceased and according to it, the date of birth of the deceased was
07.06.1957 and thus, on the date of the accident i.e.13.09.2018, the age of
the deceased was more than 61 years.
12) The learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 9 which should have been
7 according to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
others, 2017 (16) SCC 680.
13) Taking into considerations the submissions made by Mr. Gupta and the
findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, I.A. No.1/2020, an application
under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC is hereby allowed and admitted in evidence.
14) As the age of the deceased was more than 61 years of age, therefore, the
correct multiplier would be 7. According to the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), the
Claimants would not be entitled to get 15% additional amount towards future
prospects.
15) With regard to the claim case filed by the claimants for enhancement of
compensation, it appears that the learned Tribunal has not awarded the
amount on head of loss of parental consortium of Rs.40,000/- to Claimant
No.2/son of the deceased, therefore, Rs.40,000/- is awarded on this head in
favour of claimant No.2/ son of the deceased.
16) The compensation requires reconsideration and the same is being revisited
herein below:-
1. Annual dependency Rs.3,15,940/-
2. Multiplier of 7 (3,15,940 x 7) Rs.22,11,580/-
(Loss of Dependency)
3. For loss of spousal consortium Rs.40,000/-
4. For loss of parental consortium to minor Rs.40,000/-
son
5. For loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
6. For funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total (Rs.40,000/- + Rs.40,000/- + (Rs.1,10,000/+Rs.22,11,580/-)
Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/-) = =Rs.23,21,580/-
Rs.1,10,000/-
Amount awarded by the learned Tribunal Rs.33,39,979/-
Compensation assessed by this Court Rs.23,21,580/-
Liable to be reduced Rs.1,018,399/-
In the light of the above calculation, the amount of compensation is
reduced by Rs.1,018,399/-. The Insurance Company shall be liable to pay
the compensation as reduced by this Court. The rate of interest would be
the same as awarded by the learned Tribunal i.e. @ 7.5% from the date of
application till the date of its realization. The balance amount, if any, shall be
paid by the Insurance Company to the claimants within a period of 60 days
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The rest of the terms and
conditions shall remain intact.
17) In view of the above, both the appeals are partly allowed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Rekha
