Chattisgarh High Court
Jyoti Dubey vs Ramswarup Agrawal on 25 March, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:14289
Digitally
signed by
RAVVA UTTEJ
KUMAR RAJU NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1706 of 2017
1 - Jyoti Dubey Wd/o Late Anish Dubey, aged about 35 years, R/o Hemu
Nagar Colony, Police Station-Torwa, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.).
2 - Adarsh Dubey S/o Late Anish Dubey, aged about 11 years (Minor)
Through Natural Guardian Mother Jyoti Dubey, aged about 35 years, Wd/o
Late Anish Dubey, R/o Hemu Nagar Colony, Police Station Torwa, Tahsil and
District Bilaspur (C.G.).
3 - Arpit Dubey S/o Late Anish Dubey, aged about 07 years (Minor) Through
Natural Guardian Mother Jyoti Dubey, aged about 35 years, Wd/o Late Anish
Dubey, R/o Hemu Nagar Colony, Police Station Torwa, Tahsil and District
Bilaspur (C.G.).
4 - Chameli Dubey Wd/o Late Shobha Prasad Dubey, aged about 65 years,
R/o Hemu Nagar Colony, Police Station-Torwa, Tahsil and District Bilaspur
(C.G.).
... Appellants/Claimants
Versus
1 - Ramswarup Agrawal, S/o Late Girdhari Lal Agrawal, R/o Tulsi Marg,
Korba, District Korba, (C.G.) ..............(Owner of Accidental Vehicle No.
C.G.12 A K 4196).
2 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through the Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office, near Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, (C.G.)
(Insurer of Accidental Vehicle No. C.G.12 AK 4196)
2
... Respondents
For Appellants : Ms. Bhagwati Kashyap, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ayush Mahiswar, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Judgment on Board
25.03.2025.
1. The Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the
Claimants/Appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') questioning the
legality and propriety of the award dated 04.09.2017 passed by the
learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur,(C.G.) in
Claim Case No. 437/2015, whereby the learned Tribunal while allowing
the claim in part has awarded the total amount of compensation to the
tune of Rs. 8,01,312/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date
of application till realization in favour of the Claimants/Appellants for
the death of Anish Dubey (since deceased).
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 07.05.2015, Anish Dubey
(deceased), who is husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellants
No. 2 &3 and son of appellant No. 4 was on his way to take photograph
in an engagement through vehicle No. CG/12/AK/4196 (hereinafter
referred to as "the offending vehicle") which was being driven by one
Mahesh Kumar Chakradhari very rashly, negligently and he ended up
in dashing a tree, as a result of which the driver of the vehicle Mahesh
Kumar Chakradhari died on the spot and Anish Dubey sustained
severe injuries. He was admitted in Apollo hospital, where he died
during the course of treatment.
3. F.I.R. regarding the alleged accident was lodged at Police Station-
Belgahana based upon which crime bearing No. 145/2015 under
Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC were registered against respondent
No.1-owner.
4. It was pleaded that at the time of incident, the deceased Anish Dubey
was 35 years of age, was self employed by working as photographer
and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. The claimants were totally
dependent upon the earning of the deceased as he was the sole bread
winner of the family as such, they claimed a total sum of Rs.
57,50,000/- with interest as compensation under various heads.
5. Learned Claims Tribunal after appreciating oral and documentary
evidence on record passed the impugned award as mentioned above
by awarding a sum of Rs. 08,01,312/- which is too meager. Hence, this
appeal being filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the award
passed by the learned Tribunal is on lower side. It is further submitted
that the Tribunal has erred in awarding a meager amount under the
conventional head of compensation and even without considering the
amount for medical expenses when the deceased was admitted. The
learned Tribunal erred in applying the correct future prospects as per
the law laid down in the matter of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter
of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017)
16 SCC 680, therefore, the impugned award deserves to be enhanced
suitably.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 02/ The
Oriental Insurance Company has vehemently opposed the contentions
raised by the appellants/claimants, supported the impugned award and
submitted that the impugned award has been passed by the Tribunal
keeping in view all the relevant aspects of the matter including the
income of the deceased. Being so, there is no need to interfere with the
award impugned.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused
the material available on record.
9. As regard income of the deceased, though the claimants/appellants
pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month as a
photographer, but no such proof regarding the same has been adduced
by the claimants/appellants,therefore, in these circumstances in
absence of any such proof regarding the income, the income of the
deceased as a skilled labour is considered as Rs. 5787/- per month as
per minimum wages at the relevant time. The deceased was married
and he was of 35 years of age at the time of accident. Thus, in veiw of
the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) future prospects at the 40% of
the actual income of the deceased is required to be taken in place of
30%. Further, it is clear from record of the learned Tribunal that for
medical expenses it did not award any amount in favour of the
claimants/appellants. However, from bare perusal of Ex. P/09, i.e.,
medical bill of the Apollo Hospital filed by the claimants/appellants and
it is clear that the claimants/appellants have spent hefty amount
towards the deceased. The learned Tribunal has also awarded meager
compensation under the various head which requires to be enhanced
suitably. Thus, keeping in view of all these things, the above
discussion, and in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) this Court is of the view that the
amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side and the same
requires reconsideration.
Head Awarded by Awarded by this
Tribunal Court (Rs.)
(Rs.)
Income 47,520/- 69,444/- (Rs.5787 per
(Rs.3960/- month x 12)
per month x
12)
future (30% of 47,520 (40% of
prospects + 14,256)= 69,444+27,778)=97,2
61,776/- 22/-
1/4th of 61,776- 97,222-
deduction 15444=46,33 24,306=72,916
personal
and living
expenses
of
deceased
Total 46,332x16=7,4 72,916x16=11,,66,656
Loss of 1,312/- /-
Depende
ncy
For loss 20,000/- 20,000/-
of love
and
affection
For loss 30,000/- 15,000/-
of estate
For loss Nil Spousal consortium to
of appellant No. 1 =
consortiu 40,000/-.
m Parental consortium
to appellants No. 2 &
3 = 40,000/- each.
Filial consortium to
appellant No. 4=
40,000/-
For Medical Nil 70,459/-
Expenses
Funeral 10,000/- 15,000/-
Expenses
Total 8,01,312/- 14,47,115/-
compens
ation
awarded
10. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the claimants/appellants are held
entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 14,47,115/-. Since, the Claims
Tribunal has already awarded Rs.8,01,312/-, after deducting the said
amount, the claimants/appellants are entitled for enhanced amount of
Rs. 6,45,803/-. This additional amount of compensation shall carry
interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till
realization.
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned
stands modified to the extent indicated above.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
Judge
U.K. Raju
