Satyanarayan Rajput vs Surjit Kumar
2025 Latest Caselaw 2569 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Satyanarayan Rajput vs Surjit Kumar on 21 March, 2025

                                         -1-




       Digitally
REKHA signed by
SINGH REKHA
                                                        2025:CGHC:13604
       SINGH



                                                        NAFR
                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                               MAC No.1226 of 2024
 1 - Satyanarayan Rajput S/o Ratan Singh Rajput Aged About 54 Years R/o Ward No.
 15, Post Parau Dera, P.S. Lachchhanpur, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh,
 Present Address- Bajrangpara, Near Bannak Chowk, Sirgitti, P.S. Sirgitti, District
 Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

 2 - Krishna Kumari W/o Satyanarayan Aged About 52 Years Wrongly Mention In
 Impugned Order D/o Satyanarayan), R/o Ward No. 15, Post Parau Dera, P.S.
 Lachchhanpur, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, Present Address-
 Bajrangpara, Near Bannak Chowk, Sirgitti, P.S. Sirgitti, District Bilaspur,
 Chhattisgarh.
                                                            ... Appellants/Claimants

                                       versus

 1 - Surjit Kumar S/o Shiv Prasad Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Kachaura, P.S.
 Urga, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh Present Address- Basin, Champa, District
 Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G.-12-Ar-8955)

 2 - M/s Anand Transport Company, Proprietor Rajesh Kumar Minocha R/o Hig 28,
 Mp Nagar, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G.-12-
 Ar-8955)

 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch
 Office Rama Trade Centre, Second Floor, Near Rajiv Plaza, Second Floor, Near
 Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur P.S. Civil Line, Tahsil And District
 Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle No. C.G.-12-Ar-8955)

                                                            ... Respondents

For Appellants/Claimants : Ms. Rakshita Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate For Other Respondents : None appears though served

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.03.2025

1) Heard.

2) The appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal under the provisions of

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award passed by the

VIIIth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur

(C.G.) in Claim Case No.872/2023 dated 15.02.2024 wherein and whereby, an

award of Rs.17,44,492/- with interest @ 9 % per annum has been passed

against the insurance company.

3) The facts of the present case are that on 16.06.2023, the deceased Bhuneshwar

Singh Rajput and his friend Neeraj Yadav after loading pipe in the vehicle

Mazda bearing registration No.C.G.11-DB-1778 proceeded towards Pendra

and when they reached K.K. Dhaba situated near the house of Vikas Singh, the

driver of the offending truck bearing registration No.C.G.-12-AR-8955 driving

the vehicle rashly and negligently dashed the vehicle Mazda. The Mazda

vehicle caught fire, which resulted in the death of Bhuneshwar Singh Rajput

and Neeraj Yadav.

4) The Appellants/Claimants No.1 & 2 are the parents of the deceased

Bhuneshwar Singh Rajput. They filed a claim case under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming therein compensation to the tune of

Rs.30,50,000/- interalia on the ground that at the time of the death, the age of

the deceased was 29 years and he was a driver. It is pleaded that the deceased

was earning Rs.20,000/- as a driver and Rs.300/- per day as daily allowances.

5) The driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed their reply. They stated

that the deceased himself was negligent. It is pleaded that the claimants have

exaggerated their claim. It is also pleaded that the offending vehicle was

insured with the insurance company till 17.09.2023.

6) The Insurance Company filed its reply and denied the contents of the

application.

7) Learned Claims Tribunal after appreciation of evidence held that the deceased

died on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its

driver. The learned Tribunal fastened the liability with the Insurance Company

to make payment of compensation of Rs.17,44,492/- to the

appellants/claimants with interest @ 9% per annum.

8) Ms. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would

submit that the deceased was a driver and he was earning Rs.25,000/- per

month but the learned Tribunal assessed his monthly income to the tune of

Rs.11,390/- which is at a lower side. She would further submit that the learned

Tribunal failed to add 10% to the amount awarded for the loss of estate. She

would pray for the enhancement of compensation.

9) On the other hand, Mr. Nande, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance

Company would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Mishra. He would

submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation.

He would further submit that the claimants could not prove the monthly

income of the deceased by leading clinching evidence. He would contend that

the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased as

Rs.11,390/- according to the Minimum Wages payable to the skilled labourers

in the State of Chhattisgarh in the year 2023. He would further contend that

the appellants are not entitled to an additional sum of 10% on conventional

heads. He would contend that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

10) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the

record.

11) A perusal of the record would show that the claimants failed to prove the

income of the deceased by examining his employer or any other witness.

12) It is not in dispute that the deceased was a driver but the claimants could not

prove that he was employed somewhere and was earning a fixed income. The

learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased according to the

Minimum Wages payable to the skilled labourers in the year 2023 and I do not

find any illegality or error of law in such assessment.

13) With regard to the 10% additional sum on conventional heads, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. vs Pranay Sethi and

others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, held as under:-

"61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our

conclusions:-

(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.

(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.

(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.

(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.

(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.

(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.

(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."

14) The claimants would not be entitled to receive an additional sum of Rs. 10%

on figures of the conventional head as three years have not elapsed from the

date of the accident i.e. 16.6.2023.

15) As a result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha