Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Heermani vs Punamchand on 20 March, 2025
-1-
2025:CGHC:13264
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 895 of 2020
1 - Smt. Heermani W/o Late Surendra Aged About 35 Years
2- Yougal Kishore S/o Late Surendra Aged About 13 Years
3 - Tanuja D/o Late Surendra Aged About 11 Years
Both Minors applicant No.2 and 3 are through their Natural Guardian ,
Mother Smt. Heermani
4 - Smt. Kamla Bai W/o Late Gopal Aged About 60 Years All appellants
are Gound by cast and R/o Post Office Bhothapara Banraound, Police
Station Keregaoun, Tahsil- Nagari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.,
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Punamchand S/o Shivnarayan Aged About 23 Years R/o Riwagahan,
Post Office Bhendara, Thana Bhakara, Tahsil And District Dhamtari
Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Vehicle)
2 - Ramchand Sahu S/o Punit Ram Aged About 38 Years R/o Era, Post
Office Korar , Thana Bhakara, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh .
(Owner Of Vehicle)
3 - Divisional Manager United Insurance Company Limited , Bathena
Digitally
signed by
PRAVEEN
Chowk, Sinha Complex, Post Office Tahsil And District Dhamtari
KUMAR
SINHA Chhattisgarh. Through Divisional Manager , United Insurance Company
Date:
2025.03.25 Limited , Branch Office, Krishna Complex , Jail Road, Kachhahari
10:08:24
+0530 Chowk , Raipur , Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer)
... Respondent(s)
__________________________________________________________
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate
For Resp. No.1 & 2 : None appears though served
For Resp. No.3 : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate
_______________________________________________________
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Judgment On Board
20/03/2025
1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties,
the case is heard finally.
2. This is the claimant's appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "Act of 1988") seeking
enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned
Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District-
Dhamtari (CG) vide its award dated 26.03.2019 passed in Claim
Case No.127 of 2018.
3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that
applicants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of
the Act of 1988 before the learned Addl. Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Dhamtari, pleading therein that on 11.04.2018 when
deceased Surendra Kumar was walking towards his house from
his side, non-applicant No.1 coming from Surahi side drove his
vehicle pickup no. CG 05/D/1348 rashly and negligently and hit
Surendra Kumar from behind, causing an accident, due to which
he got seriously injured. He died on the way while being taken to
hospital at Dhamtari. Report of the incident was lodged against
non-applicant No.1 before Police Station Akladongri, District
Dhamtari, and a crime was registered.
4. Claimants filed an application seeking compensation pleading
therein that on the date of accident, the deceased was 36 years
old healthy and strong young man who used to earn Rs. 400-
500/- per day by working as a Carpenter and agricultural
Labourer. It was pleaded that the applicants were dependent on
the income of the deceased, they have suffered mental and
financial shock due to the said accident. They prayed for grant
of compensation amount of Rs. 23,00,000/- from the non-
applicants, and further to provide 12 % annual interest from the
date of application till the date of payment of the compensation.
5. The claim application has been opposed by non-applicants No.
1 & 2 by submitting joint written statement. It was pleaded that
non-applicant No.1 is a skilled driver possessing valid driving
licence issued by the Regional Transport Officer. Non-applicant
No.1 has never violated the conditions of insurance policy. The
deceased himself collided with the rear part of the vehicle driven
by non-applicant due to his own negligence. Non-applicant No.1
is not at fault in this incident.
6. Non-applicant No.3 also opposed the claim application by
submitting his written statement and in its additional written
statement it has been pleaded that the non-applicant No.2 i.e.
the owner of the vehicle, did not submit the information of the
accident to the office of non-applicant No.3. It was pleaded that
the non-applicant No.1/Driver was plying the vehicle without
having a proper license or the vehicle owner was plying the
vehicle in violation of the conditions of insurance policy,
therefore, non-applicant No.3 is not responsible for payment of
compensation to the applicants. Claim of the applicants is liable
to be rejected.
7. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and
evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that
Surendra Kumar died on account of motor accidental injuries
due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by
non-applicant No.1. Breach of insurance policy conditions were
not found to be proved. Assessing monthly income of the
deceased as Rs.6000/-, calculated the amount of compensation
and awarded total amount of compensation of Rs.10,11,000/-
vide award dated 26.03.2019 which is under challenge in this
appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the short
question involved in this appeal is whether the amount of
compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal by assessing
income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.6,000/- per month
and awarding total compensation of Rs.10,11,000/- is just and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case or not. He
submits that the appellants/claimants in their claim application
as also in the evidence have specifically pleaded and stated that
on the date of incident deceased was working as Carpenter and
agricultural labourer and thereby earning Rs.400-500/- per day.
However, learned Claims Tribunal erred in not considering the
nature of employment as pleaded and stated and earning of the
deceased and have assessed the income on notional basis as
Rs.6,000/- per month. He also contended that the amount
awarded on other heads also is on lower side and therefore
amount of compensation needs to be enhanced.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company
opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellant
and submits that learned Claims Tribunal in absence of specific
proof with respect to nature of employment and income of
deceased rightly assessed the income on notional basis as
Rs.6,000/- and thus calculated and awarded total amount of
compensation of Rs.10,11,000/- which in the facts and
circumstances of the case does not call for any interference.
10. In the case at hand, it is not in dispute that claimant/appellant
No.1 is the wife, appellants No.2 & 3 are the children and
appellant No.4 is the mother of deceased Surendra Kumar who
died in a fatal motor accident. Liability fastened upon
respondent No.3/Insurance company to pay compensation is
also not disputed. Claimants in their claim application pleaded
the occupation of the deceased to be Carpenter and agricultural
labourer. However, in support of their case, they have not
examined any independent witness to prove the nature of
employment of the income of the deceased but for the
statement of the appellant No.1/wife of the deceased. Hence,
the learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in
assessing income of deceased on notional basis.
11. In the aforementioned facts of the case, it cannot be said that
the appellants/claimants have proved the nature of employment
and the income of deceased by producing clinching and
admissible piece of evidence and therefore the income of the
deceased has to be assessed on notional basis.
12. For the purpose of calculating the amount of income of
deceased on notional basis in absence of any specific evidence,
this Court finds it appropriate to take help of the Notification
issued by the Commissioner and Competent Authority under
Minimum Wages Act, 1948. In the notification published for the
period from 01.10.2017 to 31.03.2018 for Class-C Cities' for
'unskilled labourer', monthly income has been prescribed as
Rs.7800/-. As the engagement of deceased as Carpenter and
agricultural labourer could not be proved, I find it appropriate to
consider the nature of employment of the deceased who is an
able-bodied person as Labourer and income as Rs.7,800/- per
month instead of Rs.6,000/- per month as held by learned
Claims Tribunal.
13. On the date of incident, age of the deceased was 40 years as
held by learned Claims Tribunal based on the postmortem report
and therefore in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi
and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680, the income of the deceased is
required to be enhanced by 25% towards future prospects which
comes to Rs. 9750/- (7800 + 1950). Thus, the annual income of
the deceased for the purpose of calculating compensation
comes to Rs. 1,17,000/- (9750 x 12). As there are four
dependents of the deceased, in view of judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, out
of this amount, ¼ is to be deducted towards personal and living
expenses of deceased and after deducting ¼, annual loss of
dependency would come to Rs.87,750/- (1,17,000 - 29250). By
applying multiplier of 15 as applied by the Claims Tribunal, to
annual loss of dependency, total loss of dependency would
come to Rs. 13,16,250/- (87,750 x 15). Apart from the above,
the claimant/appellant No. 1 would be entitled for Rs.40,000/-
towards loss of spousal consortium, appellants No. 2 & 3 being
children would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of
parental consortium and appellant No.4 being mother of the
deceased would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards of loss of
filial consortium as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias
Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130. Appellants are also
entitled to get a sum of Rs.15000/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. Now the appellants/claimants
are awarded the total compensation of Rs.15,06,250/- which are
as under:
S. N. Heads Compensation
1. Loss of Income/dependency : Rs.13,16,250
2. Funeral expenses : Rs. 15,000
3. Loss of Estate : Rs. 15,000
4. Loss of spousal consortium to : Rs. 40,000
Claimant No.1/wife
5. Loss of parental consortium to : Rs. 80,000
appellants No. 2 & 3 @ 40,000/-
each
6. Loss of filial consortium to : Rs. 40,000
appellant No.4/mother
Total compensation : Rs.15,06,250
14. Aforementioned total amount of compensation shall carry
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim
application till its realization. Any amount of compensation
already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total
amount of compensation which has now been calculated by this
Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.
15. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is
modified to the extent as indicated herein above.
Sd/--/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Praveen
