Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Rupi Singh Dhruve vs Surabh Shukla on 26 March, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:14934
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 34 of 2018
1 - Smt. Rupi Singh Dhruve W/o Late Naval Singh, Aged About 28
Years
2 - Ku. Geetanjali Singh Dhruve, D/o Late Naval Singh, Aged About 13
Years
3 - Ku. Anjali Singh Dhruve, D/o Late Naval Singh, Aged About 10
Years
4 - Ku. Nandani Singh Dhruve, D/o Late Naval Singh, Aged About 8
Years
5 - Anurag Singh Dhruve, Son Of Late Naval Singh, Aged About 13
Years
Appellant No. 2 to 5 being minor through Natural Guardian Mother
Smt. Rupi Singh Dhruve, Aged About 28 Years, W/o Late Naval Singh,
6 - Reva Singh Dhruve, Son Of Late Rambharose Singh, Aged About
65 Years
7 - Smt. Harabai Singh Dhruve, W/o Reva Singh Dhruve, Aged About
60 Years
All R/o Ward No. 4, Parijat Colony, Kasturba Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil
And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Appellants/claimants
2
versus
1 - Surabh Shukla Son Of Arvind Shukla, R/o Driver, Tilaknagar, Bhilai,
Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
2 - M/s Sudarshan Carrier, Through Smt. Sudarshan Bhatiya, R/o
109/367 G.T. Road, District Kanpur, U. P.
3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Divisional /
Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited, Office
112/1 Benajhabar, Kanpur, U. P. Regional Office, The New India
Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office
IInd Floor, Shriram Trade Center, Infront Of Rajiv Plaza, Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan with Ms. Prachi Singh,
Advocates.
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J
Judgment on Board
26/03/2025
This appeal is by the claimants against the award dated
13.10.2017 passed by VI Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bilaspur in MACT No. 487/2015 awarding total compensation of
Rs.10,73,600/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
application till realization, fastening liability on the non-applicant
No.3/insurance company jointly and severally along with non-applicant
No.1/driver and non-applicant No.2/owner.
02. As per claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, on 3.7.2015 Naval Singh was going in tanker of his
company bearing No. CG 10 C 5123 from Bilaspur to
Vishakhapattanam for taking fuel. However, on the way at Koraput
(Orissa), non-applicant No.1 by driving vehicle bearing No. UP 78 CT
0264 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle") in a rash and
negligent manner came from opposite direction and hit the vehicle of
Naval Singh as a result of which Naval Singh fell off the vehicle and
was run over by the offending vehicle. He was immediately taken to a
nearby hospital but was declared brought dead by the doctor.
It was pleaded that at the time of accident the deceased Naval
Singh was 43 years of age, working as tanker driver and earning
Rs.20,000/- per month as also Rs.200/- daily allowance. The claimants
were dependent upon the earning of the deceased and hence they
claimed a total sum of Rs.85,56,250/- with interest as compensation
under various heads.
03. Non-applicant No.1 did not file any written statement and
remained ex-parte whereas non-applicant No.2 in his written statement
contended that on the date of accident he was having a valid and
effective driving licence, there was no breach of terms and conditions
of the insurance policy on his part, therefore, compensation, if any, is
payable by the non-applicant No.3/insurance company.
04. Non-applicant No.3/insurance company in its written statement
pleaded that non-applicant No.2 was not having a valid and effective
driving licence as also the vehicle was being plied without a valid
fitness certificate and permit. This apart, the application is not
maintainable as the owner and insurer of vehicle No. CG 10C 5123
have not been made party. Therefore, the insurance company is not
liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.
05. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned
Tribunal after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record
passed the impugned award as mentioned above. Hence this appeal
by the claimants for enhancement.
06. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the
Tribunal was not justified in assessing the income of the deceased as
Rs.5000/- per month whereas it should have been taken as
Rs.20,000/- as he was working as tanker driver and was also getting
daily allowance @ Rs.200/-. The Tribunal has awarded meager amount
towards medical treatment and future prospect. This apart, under the
conventional heads also the amount awarded by learned Tribunal
needs to be suitably enhanced.
In support of above contention, reliance has been placed on the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Smt. Sarla
Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation and another,
(2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi,
(2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Nanuram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130.
07. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/insurance
company supports the impugned award and submits that the Tribunal
considering all the relevant aspects of the matter has rightly awarded
compensation which needs no interference by this Court.
08. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
09. As regards income of the deceased, though the claimants have
pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month as a
tanker driver and also getting daily allowance of Rs.200/- but no
documentary or oral evidence in support thereof has been adduced.
Therefore, in these circumstances, in absence of any proof regarding
income, the income of the deceased as a skilled labour is considered
as Rs.6,229/- per month as per minimum wages at the relevant time.
Considering the age of the deceased, the number of dependents, the
nature of job, the deduction made by the Tribunal towards personal
and living expenses, multiplier of 14 applied and 30% future prospect
granted, is quite in accordance with law and needs no interference.
However, the amount awarded under the conventional heads being on
the lower side needs to be enhanced. Thus, the claimants are held
entitled for compensation as under:
Sl. Heads Calculation
No. (in rupees)
01. Income of the deceased @ Rs.6,229/- Rs.74,748/- per
per month. annum
02. 30% of (i) above to be added towards Rs.97,172/-
future prospects.
(Rs.22,424 + Rs.74,748)
03. 1/5th deduction towards personal and Rs.77,738/-
living expenses of the deceased
(Rs.97,172-19,434)
04. Multiplier of 14 to be applied Rs.10,88,332/-
05. Towards loss of spousal consortium to Rs.50,000/-
claimant No.1
Towards loss of parental consortium to
Rs.1,60,000/-
claimants No. 2 to 5 each @ Rs.40,000/-
Towards loss of filial consortium to
Rs.80,000/-
claimants No. 6 & 7 each @ Rs.40,000/-
Rs.25,000/-
Towards funeral expenses
Rs.25,000/-
Towards loss of estate
Total compensation Rs.14,28,332/-
Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.10,73,600/-, after
deducting the same from the above amount, the claimants are held
entitled for additional compensation of Rs.3,54,732/- (Rupees Three
lacs fifty four thousand seven hundred and thirty two only) with interest
@ 6% per annum from the date of application till realization. However,
rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the
impugned award to the above extent.
Sd/
MOHD
Digitally
signed by
MOHD
(Rajani Dubey)
AKHTAR
AKHTAR KHAN
KHAN Date:
2025.03.28
16:19:16
+0530
Judge
Khan
