Chattisgarh High Court
Hardeo Ram Verma vs Poonam Fekar on 9 May, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:21562
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1883 of 2019
1. Hardeo Ram Verma S/o Baldeo Prasad Verma, Aged About 59
Years, R/o Village Ward No. 10, Chhatrapati Shivaji Chowk
Kharora, Police Station, Kharora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
1. Poonam Fekar S/o Mansharam Fekar, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Village Kesla, Police Station Palari, District Baloda Bazar-
Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
2. Hitesh Patel S/o Bharat Lal Patel, R/o Village Chatoud
Dondekala, Police Station Vidhansabha, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
3. Branch Manager Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited,
4th Floor D.B. City Corporate Park, Plot No. 1 Block No. 9,
Rajbandha Maidan Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
4. Lalit Verma S/o Hardeo Ram Verma, Aged About 30 Years,
Resident Of Village Ward No. 10, Chhatrapati Shivaji Chowk
Kharora, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
5. Dayashankar Verma S/o Hardeo Ram Verma, Aged About 32
Years, Resident Of Village Ward No. 10, Chhatrapati Shivaji
Chowk Kharora, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
6. Smt. Rukhmani Verma D/o Hardeo Verma, W/o Vinod Verma,
Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Sararidih, Police Station
Suhela, District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh.
...Respondents
For Appellant/Claimant : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate on
behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma
Advocate.
For other Respondents : None.
2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.
Order on Board
(09.05.2025)
1. This appeal arises out of the impugned award dated 19.07.2019
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar,
District-Baloda Bazar (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 153/2018
awarding a compensation of Rs. 4,66,000/-with interest @ 9%
per annum, in favour of the appellant/claimant for his
irreparable loss.
2. The breif case of the appellant is that, on 10.06.2018, Smt.
Chameli Bai (now deceased), along with her relatives, had gone
to village Karamda by Marshall vehicle for attending 'Dashgatra'
ceremony. Upon returning to village Sandi, while alighting from
the Marshal vehicle, she was hit by a motorcycle bearing
registration No. CG-04-MB-4998, driven by respondent No. 1
namely Poonam Fekar in a rash & negligent manner. As a result
of which Chameli Bai (deceased) sustained grievous injuries and
during treatment she died. After that, a report was lodged based
on the above stated offence. It is stated that on the date of the
incident, the age of the deceased was 54 years and was earning
Rs. 8,000/- per month through tailoring work. Due to the
casual death of the wife of the appellant/claimant, there is an
irreparable loss to the appellant. Therefore, the appellant
preferred an application to claim a total compensation of Rs.
12,50,000/- for his irreparable loss.
3. The learned Claims Tribunal based on the pleadings of the
parties, framed issues and, after appreciation of evidence and
material available on record, assessed the income of the
deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month and applied 10% future
prospects to the income of the deceased. Further, the age of the
deceased was considered as 56 years at the time of the accident.
Learned Tribunal found that claimant is the husband (01
person), so deduction towards personal and caring expenses
would be 1/3, and after applying a multiplier of 09, the total
loss of dependency works out to Rs. 3,96,000/- and
Rs.70,000/- has been awarding on other heads. Thus, total
compensation of Rs. 4,66,000/- has been awarded in favour of
the appellant/claimant with interest @ 9% per anum, from the
date of application till its realization.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that
although the claimant has pleaded the income of the deceased
as Rs. 8,000/- per month but the learned Claims Tribunal erred
in assessing the notional income as Rs. 5,000/- per month
which is on the lower side. Therefore, this appeal may be
allowed and needs to be enhanced suitably.
5. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for
respondent No. 3 that since there is only one claimant, being
the husband of the deceased, the deduction towards personal
and caring expenses should be 1/2 instead of 1/3.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents available on record.
7. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the
compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be
just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of
the case. It should neither be a meager amount of
compensation, nor a Bonanza.
8. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation
of Rs.4,66,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper
compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case.
9. As regards income of the deceased, though the claimant have
pleaded income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month by
tailoring work but no documentary evidence in support thereof
has been adduced. However, looking to the age of the deceased
who was 56 years at the time of accident and the minimum
wages at that time was almost the same and also considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, the income of
Rs.8,000/- as pleaded by the claimant is found to be proper.
Therefore, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs.
8,000/- per month. The annual income of the deceased comes
to Rs. 96,000 per annum. As per National Insurance Company
Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680,
considering the age of the deceased as 56 years, after adding
10% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 9,600/-, as has rightly
held by the tribunal, the annual income of the deceased comes
to Rs. 1,05,600/-.
10. The age of the deceased was 56 years and the claimant is the
husband (01 persons) of the deceased, so deduction towards
personal and caring expenses would be 1/2 instead of 1/3
i.e.,52,800/-, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 52,800/-. In
view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma
(Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance
Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC
680 considering the age of the deceased i.e., 56 years, after
applying multiplier of 09, as has rightly held by the Claims
Tribunal, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.
4,75,200/-. The claimant is further entitled for loss of estate Rs.
15,000/-, for funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- and as per 'Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online
2018 SC 189, the claimant is further entitled for loss of love
and affection Rs. 40,000/-. Therefore, the claimant would
become entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,45,200/-. Thus,
the claimant are entitled for compensation in the following
manner:-
S.No. Heads Calculation
01 Compensation towards dependency Rs. 4,75,200/-
02 Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
03 Towards Love and affection to the Rs. 40,000/-
claimant @ Rs. 40,000/-
04 Towards Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total compensation Awarded Rs. 5,45,200/-
11. In the result, the appeal of appellant/claimant is partly allowed
and the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 5,45,200/-.
After deducting Rs. 4,66,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the
enhancement would be Rs. 79,200/-. The claimant shall also be
entitled for interest @ 6% per anum from the date of enhancement
till the date of actual payment. Accordingly, the impugned award
stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions
shall remain intact.
12. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimant in
writing "the enhanced amount" in this appeal as against the
award made by the Tribunal below. The said communication be
made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal
workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal
Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimant resides.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Sourabh P.
