Chattisgarh High Court
Jhumman Lal Sahu vs Parasram Sahu on 22 March, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
Page No.1
2025:CGHC:13828
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 311 of 2020
1 - Jhumman Lal Sahu S/o Late Bisesar Ram Sahu Aged About 45
Years Caste- Teli, Resident Of Ward No. 08, Village- Armarikala, Post-
Armarikala, Police Station/tehsil- Gurur, District- Balod Chhattisgarh,
District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
2 - Smt. Kantibai Sahu W/o Jhumman Lal Sahu Aged About 44 Years
Caste- Teli, Resident Of Ward No. 08, Village- Armarikala, Post-
Armarikala, Police Station/tehsil- Gurur, District- Balod Chhattisgarh,
District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - Parasram Sahu S/o Late Bhagwatram Sahu Aged About 32 Years
Resident Of Village- Gangolidih, Police Station- Daundi, District- Balod
Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Bus- Cg-19-Bf-5054), District : Balod,
Chhattisgarh
2 - Khumaran Choudhary S/o Harjiram Choudhary Resident Of House
No. 60, Baazaarpara, Bhanupratappur, Tehsil- Bhanupratappur,
District- Kanker Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Bus- Cg-19-Bf-5054), District :
Kanker, Chhattisgarh
3 - Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited,
Address- Vyavasayik Parisar Pandri, Raipur, District- Raipur
Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
_________________________________________________________
For Appellants : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate.
Digitally
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Prasanjeet Dutta, Advocate on behalf fo
signed by
NISHA NISHA
Date:
DUBEY Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate.
DUBEY 2025.03.26
16:40:28
+0530 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Judgment On Board
22/03/2025
1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal challenging the award
dated 30.11.2019 passed by the learned 1 st Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod (for short 'the Claims Tribunal')
in Claim Case No.60/2019 whereby the Claims Tribunal allowed
claim application of claimants in part and awarded compensation
of Rs.10,88,400/- to claimants/appellants herein along with
interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application, in a
fatal accident case.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 01.01.2019 Rudresh Sahu
(since deceased) was going on his motorcycle bearing No.CG24-
E-5147, when he reached near Police Station Balod, at that time,
bus bearing registration No.CG19-BF-5054, which was coming
from opposite direction and driven in a rash and negligent
manner by respondent No.1 herein, dashed motorcycle of
Rudresh Sahu and caused accident. In the said accident,
Rudresh Sahu suffered grievous injuries. He was brought to
Primary Health Centre, Balod for treatment where the doctor
declared him dead. Accident was reported to concerned police
station based on which Crime No.2/2019 for commission of
alleged offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304A of the
Indian Penal Code was registered against respondent No.1.
3. Claimants/appellants herein, who are parents of deceased, filed
an application claiming compensation to the tune of
Rs.30,50,000/- under various heads on the ground that on the
date of accident, deceased was working as Salesman in Kabir
Krishi Kendra village-Armarikala, earning Rs.12,000/- per month
and they were dependent on earning of deceased.
4. Respondent No.1 & 2, owner & driver of offending vehicle, filed
their reply to claim application denying averments made therein.
They have pleaded that accident took place due to sole
negligence of driver of motorcycle and therefore respondent
No.1 cannot be held liable for accident. On the date of accident,
the driver of offending vehicle was having valid & effective driving
license and as the offending vehicle was fully insured with
respondent No.3-insurance company, therefore, the insurance
company is liable to indemnify the owner in case any
compensation is awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
5. Respondent No.3 Insurance Company filed its separate reply and
denied averments made in claim application except that on the
date of accident the offending motorcycle was insured with it. It
was contended that accident in question occurred due to
negligence on the part of driver of motorcycle himself and
therefore, it is the case of contributory negligence.
6. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the pleadings and
evidence placed on record (oral and documentary both) by the
respective parties has partly allowed claim application and
awarded compensation Rs.10,88,400/- along with interest @ 9%
p.a. by taking monthly income of deceased as Rs.7,000/- on
notional basis treating the deceased to be a Salesman. The
Claims Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that accident was the
result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1.
7. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submits that the
claimants in their evidence have specifically stated that on the
date of accident, deceased was working as Salesman and
earning Rs.12,000/- per month. Baisakhu Ram Sahu(AW-3), has
stated that deceased was working under him. However, the
Claims Tribunal had not assessed income of deceased
accordingly. He further argued that the Claims Tribunal has
awarded less amount towards future prospects and even the
amount awarded under other conventional head are also on
lower side. In addition to the compensation on other heads
allowed by the Claims Tribunal to the claimants, the claimants
would also be entitled to additional compensation towards filial
consortium i.e. Rs.40,000/- to each of the claimants being the
parents of the deceased who was bachelor on the date of
accident. In these circumstances, he prays for enhancement of
the amount of compensation.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent has supported
the impugned award. He submits that the claimants failed to bring
on record any documentary evidence establishing income of
deceased as pleaded and stated by them. In absence thereof,
the Claims Tribunal is justified in assessing income of deceased
on notional basis. He further submits that amount of
compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in the given facts
and circumstances of case is just and proper and it does not call
for any interference.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for appellants submitted that even
if they failed to prove the nature of employment of deceased and
his engagement to be of Salesman, income of deceased is to be
assessed on minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
11.So far as the submission of learned counsel for appellants that
the Claims Tribunal wrongly assessed monthly income of
deceased i.e. 7,000/- per month, is concerned, perusal of
pleadings in claim application and statement of appellants would
show that deceased Rudresh Sahu was working as Salesman in
Kabir Krishi Kendra and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. AW-3
Baisakhu Sahu, the Incharge of the Centre where deceased was
working, has stated that deceased was working under him and
he was paying Rs.12,000/- per month to him. Though the
evidence of AW-2 proves the fact of employment of deceased but
there is no documentary evidence on record like books of
accounts etc. to substantiate the plea that income of deceased
was Rs.12,000/- per month. Hence, in the opinion of this Court,
the Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in disbelieving
the income of the deceased to be Rs.12,000/-, as pleaded.
However, it is well settled that in cases where no documentary
evidence has come on record to prove income of the deceased,
the Claims Tribunal should determine income of the deceased on
the basis of the minimum wages notified under the Minimum
Wages Act. As per Notification issued by the Competent
Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, minimum wage
prevalent in the year 2017 i.e. October, 2017 for an unskilled
worker of 'A' Grade cities was Rs.8320/- per month and hence, it
will be proper to assess the income of deceased treating him to
be a labourer, at Rs.8320/- per month.
12. Perusal of the impugned award would show that the Claims
Tribunal while computing the amount of compensation has added
40% towards future prospects, deducted half towards personal
expenses of deceased and applied multiplier 18, which in the
facts and circumstances of the case is correct and does not call
for any interference. However, the Claims Tribunal has not
awarded any amount towards filial consortium to the appellants,
as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Magma
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram & ors, reported in (2018) 18
SCC 130 that filial consortium is the right of the parents to
compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child.
Hence, the appellants are held entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/-
each towards filial consortium.
13. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, this Court proposes
to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to
claimants/appellants.
14. Income of the deceased is taken as Rs.8,320/- per month, as
held above, and after adding 40% towards future prospects in the
light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC
680, the monthly income comes to Rs.11648/- (8320+3328) and
annual income comes to Rs.1,39,776/- (10448x12). Out of this,
50% is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of
deceased being bachelor and after deducting half, loss of
dependency would come to Rs.69,888/-. After applying multiplier
of 18, as applied by Claims Tribunal, the total loss of dependency
comes to Rs.12,57,984/- (69888x18). Besides this, appellants
being parents of deceased are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/-
each towards filial consortium, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the matters of Nanu Ram(supra). In addition to aforesaid
amount, appellants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/-
for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate, as
awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Thus, total amount of
compensation comes to Rs.13,67,984/- (12,57,984 + 40,000
+40,000+15,000+15,000) recoverable from the respondents,
jointly and severally. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the
impugned award shall remain intact.
15.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned
award stands modified to the extent indicated above.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Nisha
