Chattisgarh High Court
Ashok Gupta vs Birsai Rajwade on 24 March, 2025
-1-
2025:CGHC:13981
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 450 of 2020
1 - Ashok Gupta S/o Yadunandan Sao Aged About 47 Years
2 - Smt. Sheela Gupta W/o Ashok Gupta Aged About 44 Years
Both are R/o Village Luragikhurd Post Bhendari Tahsil Balrampur District
Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh Present Address- Bhathi Road Trikon
Chowk Mikal Gali (In The House Of Shanti Devi) Kedarpur Police Station
Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh
... Appellant (s)
versus
1 - Birsai Rajwade S/o Achambhit Rajwade Occupation Service (S. E. C. L. )
R/o Village Unchdih Chaini Basdeai District Surajpur Chhattisgarh Present
Address New Shaktinagar Jarahi Police Station Bhatgaon District Surajpur
Chhattisgarh...(Owner)
2 - The Branch Manager Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Gouri
Shankar Mandir Road Raigarh Chhattisgarh. Through Branch Iffco Tokio
General Insurance Company Ltd Branch Office M.M. Silver Plaza 2nd Floor
In Front Of Udhyog Bhawan Ring Road No. 1, Raipur, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
__________________________________________________________
For Appellant (s) : Ms. Aakancha Vishwakarma, Advocate on
behalf of Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate
For Resp. No.1 : Ms. Richa Patel, Advocate on behalf of
Digitally
signed by
Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate
PRAVEEN
KUMAR
SINHA
Date: For Resp. No.2 :Mr. P.R. Patankar with Mr. Pravesh Sahu,
2025.03.27
10:41:45
+0530
Advocates
_______________________________________________________
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Judgment On Board
24/03/2025
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
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja
(CG) vide award dated 23rd October 2019 passed in Motor
Accident Claim Case No.104 of 2018.
3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that
appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the
Act of 1988 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Ambikapur District- Sarguja, pleading therein that on 09/07/2016,
deceased Shubham Gupta, after taking permission from the
superintendent of the Hostel, was walking some distance from
the hostel to get some documents where he met Tarun Kumar
Rajwade who forcibly made him sit on the motorcycle of non-
applicant No.1 and was taking him from Bhatgaon to Jarhi. At
around 06:45 pm Tarun Kumar Rajwade, while driving the
motorcycle rashly and negligently, hit a tree on main road and
caused an accident. In the said accident, Shubham Gupta
suffered serious injuries on his head, legs, stomach, neck and
face, he was admitted to S.E.C.L. Bhatgaon Hospital for
treatment where he died during treatment. The driver of the
motorcycle Tarun Kumar Rajwade also died during treatment at
Jeevan Jyoti Hospital, Ambikapur. At the time of the accident,
deceased Shubham Gupta was about 16 years old and was a
student, but due to his untimely motor accidental death, the
applicants have suffered irreparable loss and they have been
deprived of the benefits of the said dependency. It was further
pleaded that since on the date of accident, non-applicant No.1
was the registered owner of the motorcycle involved in the
accident and non-applicant No.2 was its insurer, therefore, they
be given compensation amounting to Rs.15,50,000/- (Fifteen
lakh, fifty thousand rupees) from the non-applicants separately or
jointly.
4. Non-applicant No.1 in his written statement, apart from accepting
the undisputed facts, has denied all other allegations of the
applicants and has stated that at the time of the accident,
Shubham Gupta was driving the motorcycle on his own without
taking permission or consent from him. Consequently, Shubham
Gupta and the insurance company are themselves responsible
for the entire loss caused by the accident. Therefore, it is prayed,
the claim of the applicants against non-applicant No.1 be
dismissed.
5. Respondent No.2/Insurance company in its written statement,
apart from accepting the undisputed facts, has denied all other
allegations of the applicants and has stated that the applicants
have wrongly involved the motorcycle in this case only with the
desire to get compensation. On the date of the accident Tarun
Rajwade did not have a license to drive a motorcycle. Knowing
this, non-applicant No.1 gave him the motorcycle to drive, which
was in violation of the conditions of the insurance policy.
Therefore, it is prayed, claim of the applicants may be dismissed.
6. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and
evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on
the date of incident, Tarun Kumar Rajwade (deceased) drove the
offending vehicle- motorcycle bearing registration C.G./15-CV-
7943 owned by non-applicant No.1 and insured with non-
applicant No.2 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident
occurred in which Shubham Gupta sustained serious injuries
resulting in his death. Recording a finding that the non-applicant
No.2/Insurance Company could not prove that the vehicle was
being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance
policy, learned Claims Tribunal held non-applicant
No.2/Insurance company liable to pay the compensation to the
applicants/claimants. Assessing annual income of the deceased,
a student, to be Rs.54,000/- per annum (4500 x 12) and
calculating the loss suffered by the claimants under different
heads and compensation therefor, awarded total amount of
compensation of Rs7,50,400/ -.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned
Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased
on lower side as Rs.4,500/- only overlooking the fact that on the
date of incident i.e. 09.07.2016 age of the deceased was 16
years only. She also contented that amount of compensation
awarded on other heads is on lower side.
8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 supports the
award.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurance company
opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellants
and would submit that as per pleadings and evidence deceased
was a student and it has only been pleaded that he was helping
his father in the work and, therefore, Tribunal has rightly
assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month
on notional basis which does not call for any interference. He
also contended that future prospects is also awarded in view of
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017)
16 SCC 680 and amount of compensation awarded under other
heads is also just and proper.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused
the records of the Claims Tribunal.
11. In this case, it is undisputed that the accident-causing motorcycle
bearing registration No.-CG 15/CV-7943 was insured with
respondent No.2/ Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company for the
period from 23/03/2016 to 22/03/2017. It is also undisputed that
on the date of accident, the registered owner of the said
motorcycle was non-applicant No.1. Motor accidental death of
Shubham Gupta, a student aged 16 years is not disputed.
Liability fastened upon non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company
to satisfy the amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims
Tribunal is also not in dispute. Only ground raised in this appeal
is with respect to enhancement of amount of compensation on
the afore-discussed ground.
12. Perusal of the pleadings made and evidence brought on record
by the claimants/appellants would show that the deceased
Shubham Gupta was a student and he used to help in the work
of his father. He is not engaged separately for the purpose of
earning any livelihood. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed
income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month on notional
basis. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of
the case, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the
finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal while assessing the
income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/-.
13. In the case at hand, respondent No.2/Insurance company has
not challenged the award so far as it relates to assessing of
income of the deceased to be Rs.4,500/- per month. Learned
Tribunal has awarded 40% towards future prospects as also Rs.
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral
expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of child in view of
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra), which in the facts and circumstances of the case,
appears to be proper and does not warrant any interference.
However, the appellants/claimants who are the parents of the
deceased are also entitled for loss of filial consortium of
Rs.40,000/- 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. Therefore, this Court
finds it appropriate to award Rs.40,000/- to appellants No.1 & 2
each being parents of the deceased. Thus, in addition to the
amount of compensation of Rs.7,50,400/- already awarded by
learned Claims Tribunal, claimants/appellants No. 1 & 2 are also
entitled for additional compensation of Rs.80,000/- (40,000 +
40,000). Now, the appellants/claimants are awarded the total
compensation of Rs. 8,30,400/- (7,50,400 + 80,000).
14. The amount of Rs.80,000/- which is now being awarded to
appellant No. 1 & 2/claimant additionally towards loss of filial
consortium shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date
of filing of application till its realization. Any amount of
compensation already paid to the claimant/appellant 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/- Sd/--/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Praveen
