Surja Bai Vs Manharan Devdas

¶1

1 / 5

¶2

2024:CGHC:35119

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

M.A(C) No.485 of 2020

¶6

1 - Surja Bai W/o Late Yash Kumar Tandon Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Kodapar, Tahsil And Police Station Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

2 - Minor Rishabh Kumar S/o Late Yash Kumar Tandon, Aged About 04 Month, Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Surja Bai, Wd/o Late Yash Kumar Tandon, R/o Village Kodapar, Tahsil And Police Station Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

3 - Bishaliram S/o Mararu Satnami Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Kodapar, Tahsil And Police Station Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

... Appellants

¶10

versus

¶11

Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2024.09.10 17:48:39 +0530

¶12

1 - Manharan Devdas S/o Shri Piratu Devdas Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Bijali, Police Station Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Chhota Hathi Bearing Registration No. C.G.-04-L C-3064)

¶13

2 - Anendra Kumar Sinha S/o Ramprasad Sinha, R/o Village Kalarpara Sarakhi, Police Station Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Chhota Hathi Bearing Registration No. C.G.-04-L C-3064)

¶14

3 - Branch Manager Through The New India Insurance Company

¶15

2 / 5

¶16

Limited Address-Micro Office Near Purani Krishi Upaj Mandi, Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Chhota Hathi Bearing Registration No. C.G.-04-LC-3064) ... Respondents

¶17

For Appellants : Shri SP Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Smt Chitra Shrivastava, Advocate. No.3/Insurance Company

¶18

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Order On Board

¶19

09.09.2024

¶20

This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') by the Appellants/Claimants questioning the legality and propriety of the award dated 15.11.2019 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (CG) (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.32/2018 for enhancement of the compensation amount.

¶21

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 20.04.2018, at about 8.30 pm, while deceased Yash Kumar Tandon was going from Kumhi to Bakali by his motorcycle, Respondent No.1/driver who was driving the offending vehicle i.e. chhota hathi bearing registration No.CG 04 LC 3064 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed his motorcyle as a result of which, the deceased died on spot having received grevious injuries on his head and other parts of the body.

¶22

On account of the aforesaid accident, the Claimants being the wife minor son and father of the deceased, instituted a Claim Petition enumerated under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming total amount

¶23

3 / 5

¶24

of compensation of Rs.23,50,000/- under various heads by submitting inter alia that the deceased was working as Mason (raj mastri) and used to earn Rs.9,000/- per month.

¶25

Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Claimants submits that the Tribunal has awarded less amount of compensation as on the date of accident i.e. 20.04.2018, as per the notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act, for the period commencing from 01.04.2018 to 13.09.2018, the minimum wages for the unskilled agricultural labour is to the tune of Rs.6,900/- and the Dearness Allowance is to the tune of Rs.220/- meaning thereby, in aggregate, monthly income is Rs.7,120/-. The deceased has left behind his wife, one minor son and his father but no compensation has been awarded under the head ‘loss of parental consortium’ and ‘filial consortium’. He, therefore, prays to enhance the compensation amount suitably.

¶26

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent/Insurance Company has supported the impugned award. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through award impugned carefully.

¶27

Undisputedly, the deceased was aged 25 years old and has left behind his wife, one minor son and his father as dependents. The Tribunal, for want of cogent evidence, calculated the notional income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.6,000/- per month. According to learned Counsel for the Appellants, for the said period, the minimum wages as per the notification for unskilled agricultural labour is to the tune of Rs.7,120/-, therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to redetermine the

¶28

4 / 5

¶29

monthly notional income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.7,120/- per month.

¶30

As per the judgment rendered in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the future prospects to the tune of 40% shall be added to the aforesaid income. The Tribunal has rightly applied 1/3rd deductions as also multiplier of 18 correctly but not awarded any compensation towards parental and fillial consortium, therefore, an amount of Rs.40,000/- each under the said head should also be added. The Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation under the other heads.

¶31

Accordingly, the actual income of the deceased would be Rs.7,120/-, by adding future prospects @ 40% i.e. 2,848/- (Rs.7,120/-+ 2,848/-), it comes to Rs.9,968/-. By applying 1/3rd deductions (Rs.3,323x2), it comes to Rs.6,645/- and 6,645 x 12= 79,740/-. By applying the multiplier of 18, it comes to Rs. 14,35,320/-. The mode of compensation towards conventional heads is as under:-

¶32

	Mode of Compensation	Amount
		Rs.
i.	For loss of consortium to wife, son and father @ Rs.40,000/- each	1,20,000/-
ii.	For funeral expenses	15,000/-
iii.	For loss of estate	15,000/-
	Total	1,50,000/-

¶33

5 / 5

¶34

Thus, the Claimants would be entitled to a total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.15,85,320/-, instead of Rs.12,79,600/as held by the Tribunal, with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim Petition till its realization.

¶35

The enhanced amout of Rs.3,05,720/- along with interest @ 6% shall be paid by the Insurance Company within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The amount so deposited shall be distributed to the Appellants/Claimants in a proprotionate manner and share of the minor Claimant i.e. Appellant No.2 shall be kept in fixed deposit till he attains majority.

¶36

The Appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated herein above.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶39

Priya

Surja Bai v. Manharan Devdas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surja Bai v. Manharan Devdas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Agrawal Vs Ramcharan Chakradhari

Ashutosh Chaubey Vs Smt. Roshni Tiwari

Kartiko Vs Prabhu Ram

Indresh Patel Vs Narad Chaudhary

Siyaram Kaushik Vs Sukhsagar Rajak

Bharat Variha Vs Smt. Draupati Variha