Heera Vs Pravesh Choudhary

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:32104

¶3

Digitally signed byRAGHVENDRA JAT

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 1041 of 2017

¶7

1 - Heera S/o Lahashan Aged About 42 Years Occupation Labour R/o Village Parsagudi Khajurpur Police Station And Tahsil Rajpur, District Balrampur, Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2 - Sanjay Kushava S/o Heera Aged About 41 Years OccupationLabour R/o Village Parsagudi Khajurpur Police Station And Tahsil Rajpur, District Balrampur, Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh..............Appellants , District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ajay Kushava S/o Heera Aged About 19 Years Occupation. Student R/o Village Parsagudi Khajurpur Police Station And Tahsil Rajpur, District Balrampur, Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh..................Appellant , District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Appellant(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Pravesh Choudhary S/o Chotelal Choudhary Aged About 26 Years Occupation Driver M.P. 65 Ja 0297 R/o Vilalge Khongapani Chhappan

¶12

2

¶13

Dafai Paolice Station Jhgarkhand DistrictKoriya,

¶14

Chhattisgarh. ...Driver , Chhattisgarh.

¶15

2 - Rakesh Kumar Gupta S/o Shri C.L. Gupta Aged About 39 Years Occupation Registered Owner And Businessman R/o Village Bijuri Police Stationbijiri Tehsil Kotma District Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh...........Owner, District : Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh.

¶16

3 - Nasim Khan S/o Salim Khan Aged About 31 Years Occupation Real Owner, R/o Manendragarh, Police Station And Tehsil - Manendragarh, District - Koriya, Chhattisgarh. , District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh.

¶17

4 - Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Sahdol Madhya Pradesh, District : Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh.

¶18

... Respondent(s)

¶19

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Shubham Tiwari, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 & 3	: None.
For Respondent(s)No. 2	: Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 4	: Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate.

¶20

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

10/07/2025

¶23

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 16.03.2017 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim

¶24

3

¶25

Case No. 114/2014 (“Heera & Ors. Vs. Pravesh Choudhary & Ors.”) whereby an amount of Rs. 3,96,135/- with interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded in the favour of the claimants of the deceased for their irreparable loss.

¶26

Brief facts of the case, is that on 18.12.2013 at around 2:00 PM, the appellant and his deceased wife, Manmati, were returning from Mission Hospital on their motorcycle, driving carefully and on the correct side of the road. When they reached near Pratappur Chowk, the offending truck bearing registration number M.P. 65 JA 0297, driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1, hit their motorcycle from behind and rammed into the deceased, causing grievous injuries to her waist, hand, leg, and other parts of the body, leading to her death later that night at the hospital. The incident was reported to the police, and a case was registered against respondent No. 1. The claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for her death. The respondents have filed their reply denying the claimants' pleadings. After considering the evidence produced by both parties, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,96,135/- in favour of the appellants. Aggrieved by the inadequate compensation, the appellants have preferred this appeal before this Hon’ble

¶27

4

¶28

Court seeking enhancement of the awarded amount. Therefore, the appellants/claimants of the deceased preferred an application claiming a total compensation of Rs. 6,41,373/-.

¶29

After considering the evidence and documents brought on record, the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum. After deduction of 1/3 of the income i.e. Rs. 12,000/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 24,000/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 36 to 40 years and the appellants/claimants are the husband and children of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 3,60,000/-. Further Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 6,135/- towards medical treatment has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 3,96,135/- in favour of the husband and children of the deceased with interest @ 7% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,96,135/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation

¶31

5

¶32

awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably.

¶33

On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 4 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement.

¶34

None for respondent Nos. 1 & 3.

¶35

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 opposes the same.

¶36

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶37

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.

¶38

Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

¶39

As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,500/- per month from her work, but no evidence in this regard has been

¶40

6

¶41

produced by the claimants. Therefore, the Tribunal keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, wage structure prevailing on the date of accident and also the evidence available on record, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/per month which appears to be proper on accident dated i.e. 18.12.2013. Hence, accepting the income of the deceased Rs. 5163/- per month, the annual income comes to Rs. 61,956/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 25% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 15,489/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 77,445/-.

¶42

Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 36 to 40 years and the appellant/claimants are the husband and children of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/2 (Rs. 38,722/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 38,723/-. 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 and also considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 15, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 5,80,845/-. The claimants are further entitled for Rs. 18,000/-

¶43

7

¶44

towards loss of estate (increase of 10% in every three years) and Rs. 18,000/- for funeral expenses (increase of 10% in every three years). As per ' Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189 , the claimants are further entitled for Rs. (40,000/-X3+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 1,44,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. husband and children of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 7,60,845/- in the following manner:-

¶45

S.No.	Heads	Calculation
01	Towards loss of dependency	Rs. 5,80,845/-
02	Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X3+10% +10%).	Rs. 1,44,000/-
03	Towards loss of estate along with increase of 10% in every threeyears.	Rs. 18,000/-
04	Towards Funeral Expenses along with increase of 10% in everythreeyears.	Rs. 18,000/-
	Total	Rs. 7,60,845/-

¶46

Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 7,60,845/-. After deducting Rs. 3,96,135/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 3,64,710/-.

¶47

8

¶48

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed . The claimants/appellants i.e. husband and children of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 3,64,710/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.

¶49

The appeal filed by the owner, namely, Rakesh Kumar Gupta has already been dismissed vide order dated 21.09.2023 passed in MAC No. 822/2017 as such the finding in respect of liability to the owner, namely, Rakesh Kumar Gupta has been confirmed by this Court and as such there is no chance to be interfered with. There is an order passed by the Tribunal to pay the compensation amount and to recover the same from the owner, namely, Rakesh Kumar Gupta and accordingly the insurance company has paid entire amount. The enhanced amount of compensation is also directed to be paid by the insurance company and to recover the same from concerned owner, namely, Rakesh Kumar Gupta, in accordance with law.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶52

Judge

¶53

Raghu Jat

Heera v. Pravesh Choudhary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Heera v. Pravesh Choudhary

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

Smt. Nootan Chouhan Vs Arshad Ali Khan

Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited Vs Jagdish @ Bhurva

Ram Ratan Banjare Vs Jainuram Sori

Smt. Uttara Bai Vs Smt. Mala Kaushik

Chhanulal Dhivar Vs Ramprasad Barmate

Patiram Gupta Vs United India Insurance Company Limited