Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Ushabai vs Chaturbhushan Kesharvani on 11 September, 2025

                                            1




                                                           2025:CGHC:46670


                                                                           NAFR

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                   MAC No. 807 of 2019

1 - Smt. Ushabai W/o Late Kholbahra Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Kumhari,
P.S. Gidhori, District- Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh.Presently Resided At Village Risda,
P.S. Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh


2 - Ravi Kumar S/o Late Kholbahra Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Their
Natural Guardian Mother Appellant No.1, R/o Village Kumhari, P.S. Gidhori,
District- Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh.Presently Resided At Village Risda, P.S. Masturi,
District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.


3 - Sameer Kumar S/o Late Kohlbahra Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Their
Natural Guardian Mother Appellant No.1, R/o Village Kumhari, P.S. Gidhori,
District- Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. Presently Resided At Village Risda, P.S. Masturi,
District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                      ... Petitioner(s)


                                         versus


1 - Chaturbhushan Kesharvani S/o Late Gokul Prasad Kesharvani Aged About 50
Years R/o Ward No.6, Bhatgaon Chowki, Bhatgaon, P.S. Bilaigarh, District-
Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh................(Driver Of The Vehicle Car No. C.G.
04 Kp 0624)


2 - Sahdev Prasad Sahu S/o Janakram Sahu R/o Village Girvani, P.S. And Tahsil
Bilaigarh, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.............(Registered Owner
Of The Vehicle Car No.C.G. 04kp 0624)
                                                2


3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Division Manager, Division
Office, Rama Trade Center, In Front Of Rajiv Plaza, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District-
Bilaspur,    Chhattisgarh..............(Insurance   Company   Of   The   Vehicle   Car
No.C.G.04kp0624),
                                                                     ... Respondent(s)

For Appellant (s)         :   Ms. Priyanka Bajpai, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 :         Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate

                          ({Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput})

                                      Order on Board

11/09/2025

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Act') has been filed assailing legality, correctness and judicial propriety of award dated 30/01/2019passed in claim case No.649/18 by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, CG. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs.41,75,000/-, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 710400/- in favour of the appellants/claimants on account of death of Pratap Kumar in a accident that occurred on 25/05/2018 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Car) bearing registration No.CG 04 KP-0624 driven by respondent No.1/driver, owned by respondent No.2/owner and insured with respondent No.3. As per pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, the deceased along with pillion rider on his motor cycle was going Gidhori from Bilaigarh main road. On the date of accident, i.e. 25/05/2018 as they reached Dabri, the driver of the offending vehicle drove rashly and negligently and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased resulting into his death and as also the pillion rider. The pleadings further reflects that the deceased was aged about 22 years and was a Carpenter earning Rs.30,000/- per month. The appellants/ claimants were dependent upon his income, therefore, the abovestated compensation was claimed.

2. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a written statement before the Claims Tribunal, thereafter, proceeded ex-parte. In their written statement, the driver and owner denied the averments of the claim application and it is stated that the vehicle was driven by the deceased at a high speed. Respondent No.3 also filed written

statement, denied averments and pleaded that there is violation of the insurance policy. Learned Tribunal having framed issues, decided the same in favour of the appellants / claimants and awarded the aforestated compensation.

3. In the case in hand, cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC has been filed by the insurance company asserting therein that the deceased also contributed in causing the accident, therefore, the compensation awarded could be reduced on account of it.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount of compensation is on the lower side which requires suitable enhancement.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposes the above submission and submits that 4 persons were travelling on a motor cycle, therefore, the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased could be easily inferred. Therefore, the amount of compensation may be reduced.

6. Opposing the above submission, learned counsel for the appellant submits that no evidence was led by the insurance company to substantiate the pleadings, even the driver of the car has not been examined to say that in any manner, the deceased also contributed in causing the accident. Placing reliance on the judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and ors, (2017) 16 SCC 680 (para No.37) to contend that as the deceased was the sole bread winner and his father has already died earlier, the widowed mother and two minor brothers were dependent upon the income of the deceased, therefore, instead of ½ deduction, 1/3rd ought to have been deducted.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. The first question as to whether the cross objection of respondent No.3 can be entertained and the finding of contributory negligence can be passed. Of course there were 4 persons travelling on the motor cycle which was driven by the deceased which ipso facto would not lead to any irresistible conclusion that he also contributed in causing the accident. The best witness which could have proved the role of the deceased in attributing any contributory negligence in causing the accident is the driver of the offending vehicle. For the reasons best

known to him, he has not been examined.

9. FIR was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was also filed. The insurance company has also not led the evidence to substantiate the pleadings. Therefore, this Court is unable to accept the contention of counsel for the insurance company that the deceased also contributed to a certain extent in causing the accident. Therefore, the cross objection is dismissed.

10. This leads me to the second point as to what would be the just compensation which may be awarded to the appellants / claimants.

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for respondent No.3 placed on record the order passed by this Court in MAC No.795/2019 arising out of the same accident in which pillion rider lost his life and the learned Tribunal took the notional income as Rs.7800/-.

11. Taking into consideration the nature of job, date of accident and number of dependents, this Court is inclined to take the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.8000/- in the light of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121, Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 18 SCC 130.

12. In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) in paragraph No.37, it has been observed as under-

"37. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly reflectible from Sarla Verma (supra), Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65, Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Munna Lal Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma, (2015) 6 SCC 347. Three aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraphs 30, 31 and 32, Sarla Verma (supra) lays down:-

"30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in UP SRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362, the general practice is to

apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this (2003) 3 SLR (R) 601 Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one- fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.

31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.

32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non- earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third."

13. From the records, it appears that the appellant No.1 is the widowed mother of the deceased and two minor brothers aged about 10 years and 6 years were dependent upon the income of the deceased. Therefore, instead of ½ deduction, this Court is inclined to take 1/3 rd deduction. Taking guidance from the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court propose to recompute the compensation in the following manner -

1 Monthly income Rs.8000/-

2 Future Prospects 40% (8000+3200) Rs.11200/-

3 Yearly loss of income (11200 x 12) Rs.134400/-

4 1/3rd deduction (1,34,400-44800) Rs.89600/-

5 Applying Multiplier of 15 (89600 x 18) Rs.1612800/-

6. Funeral Expenses + Rs.15000/-

7. Loss of estate + Rs.15000/-

8. Spousal consortium to appellant No.1 + Rs.40000/-

9. Filial consortium (Rs.40,000/- each) + Rs.80000/-

TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.1762800/-

14. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.7,10,400/- which is deducted from the total compensation now assessed and the enhanced compensation comes to Rs.10,52,400/-. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, interest @ 6% is also awarded on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the appeal i.e. 07/05/2019 to be deposited within a period of 60 days by the insurance company. After deposit, Rs.2,00,000/- each shall be invested for two years in the name of the appellant No.2 and 3 as fixed deposit in a nationalised bank till they attain majority. Rs.5 lakhs shall be invested in the name of appellant No.1 for two years as fixed deposit in a nationalized bank. Remaining amount shall be disbursed to appellant No.1 through bank transaction/account payee cheque.

15. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed.

Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

Deepti

Digitally signed by DEEPTI DEEPTI HARIKUMAR HARIKUMAR Date: