Smt. Dulourin Madhukar Vs Birat Chhattar

4 - Dev Prakash S/o Late Mohan Madhukar Aged About 25 Years All are R/o Village Panchapedi , Post Office Panchapedi, Tahsil Masturi And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

--- Petitioner(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - Birat Chhattar S/o Bhikhari Chhattar Aged About 42 Years Occupation Driver , R/o Kesar Awaspara 30 Rajkishore Nagar Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Car No. C.G. 10 / Y/ 0943)

¶13

2 - Suja Abraham S/o A.J. Abraham R/o Devendra Nagar Ameri Road , Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Registered Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Car No. C.G. 10 / Y/ 0943) (Owner),

¶14

3 - S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited Registered And Corporation Officer Natraj 101, 102 And 301, Junction Western Express Highway And Andheri Kurla Road Andheri East Mumbai, Branch Manager , S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited , Branch Office Rama Port 2nd Floor Byapar Vihar, Main Road Mahila Big Near Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Institute Of The Offending Vehicle Car No. C.G. 10 / Y/ 0943) (Insurer)

¶15

--- Respondent(s)

¶16

For Appellants : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Santoshi Yadav on behalf of Mr. Utsav Mahishwar, Advocate

¶17

Digitally signed by BALRAM BALRAMPRASADDEWANGAN PRASADDEWANGANDate:2025.04.23 10:25:02 +0530

¶18

2

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶20

Order On Board

¶21

09/04/2025

¶22

Claimant/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 18.02.2020 passed in MACT No.764/2018 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.5,79,600/- as compensation in a death case.

¶23

Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 07.06.2018 when Mohan Madhukar was going to his house from Masturi to Pachpedi on his TVS Excel Moped, offending vehicle Car bearing registration No.C.G.-10-Y 0943, which was coming towards Bakarkuda Rice Mill, driven by respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner dashed the motor cycle of the deceased Mohan Madhukar, due to which he suffered grievous injuries on his head, chest, leg, hand and other various parts of his body. He was taken to Community Health Center, Masturi and looking to his serious condition, he was referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur. During course of treatment Mohan Madhukar died.

¶24

Appellants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.39,50,000/- pleading therein that at the time of accident, he was working as Postman in the post office and was getting salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. Apart from above, he was also doing agriculture work from which he was earning Rs.60,000/- per annum. Claimants had also sought compensation under all other

¶25

3

¶26

heads as are available to them like loss of future income, for love and affection and loss of consortium etc.

¶27

Non-applicant Nos.1 & 2 submitted reply to claim application and resisted the claim. It was pleaded that the appellant No.2 to 4 are major and they are not dependent upon the deceased, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of any compensation. The claim petition was filed exaggerating the amount of compensation. It was also pleaded that on the date of incident respondent No.1 was having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. The vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.3 and there was no breach of policy condition. It was pleaded that in case, appellant is entitled for compensation, then respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation.

¶28

Non-applicant No.3-Insurer of offending vehicle, submitted reply to claim application denying the pleadings made therein. It was pleaded that no accident was occurred with the offending vehicle. In connivance with the respondents No.1 and 2, the offending vehicle was shown to have involved in the alleged accident in order to get compensation. It was pleaded that at the time of accident the vehicle was used on rent and the respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently without having any valid licence, there was breach of condition of insurance policy, hence, insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation.

¶29

Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, learned Claims Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant

¶30

4

¶31

No.1, due to which the Mohan succumbed to injuries. Breach of Policy condition was not found to be proved. Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.5,79,600/- along with interest @ 6% per annum, fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation.

¶32

Learned counsel for appellants submits that Tribunal erred in assessing the age of the deceased as 64 years, only considering the Aadhar Card placed on record as Ex.D-1 overlooking the pleadings made by the claimants in the claim application as also the oral statement that on the date of incident, the age of the deceased was only 54 years. He next contended that if the age of the deceased is considered as 54 years, there shall be addition of 15% towards the future prospects in the income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation and the application of the multiplier would be 11 instead of 7. He lastly contended that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation on other conventional as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 .

¶33

Learned counsel for the respective respondents submits that the impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal is in accordance with the evidence available on record. The amount of compensation is just and proper, which does not call for any interference.

¶34

5

¶35

I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record.

¶36

So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that deceased was aged about 54 years of age and not 64 years as assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal is concerned, the appellants/claimants have not produced any documentary evidence to prove the age of the deceased but for the copy of the postmortem report, wherein the age of the deceased is mentioned as 54 years. The Claims Tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased considering the Aadhar Card (Ex.D-1), which is government document, hence, in absence of any admissible piece of documentary evidence with respect to proof of age, age mentioned in the Aadhar Card cannot be disbelieved. In the case at hand the deceased was working as rural Postman he might be an educated person, however, the claimants have not submitted the educational testimonials to prove the age of the deceased. Hence, in absence of any admissible piece of documentary evidence brought on record by the appellants, the age mentioned in the Aadhar Card cannot be disbelieved and in the opinion of this Court the Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in accepting the age of the deceased as mentioned in the Adhar Card. For the forgoing discussions, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the age of the deceased as 64 years, is not acceptable and accordingly it is repealed.

¶37

As the deceased was 64 years of age on the date of accident, there may not be addition to the income of the deceased towards the loss of

¶38

6

¶39

future prospects because the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has held that the future prospects of 15% is to be added only where the deceased was in permanent employment and in between the age of 50 to 60 years. The deceased at the time of accident, crossed the age of 60 years as per the documentary evidence available on record.

¶40

There is no dispute with respect to the income of the deceased as assessed by Claims Tribunal and deduction of 1/3 towards personal expenses. The Claims Tribunal has assessed the annual loss of dependency/loss of income as Rs.72,800/- after deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses and by applying the multiplier of 7, assessed the total loss of dependency as Rs.5,09,600/-.

¶41

So far as the last submission made by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount under other conventional heads as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) is concerned, perusal of the impugned award would show that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- each for funeral expenses and for loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- towards the loss of spousal consortium to the appellant No.1/wife and not awarded any amount towards parental consortium to the children i.e. appellants No.2 to 4. Hon’ble Supreme Court inc case of Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (supra) has considered the issue with respect to the award of loss of consortium to the spouse, children and the children of the deceased and in view of the aforementioned decision, appellant No.2 to 4 are also entitled for loss of parental consortium. Accordingly an amount of Rs.40,000/-

¶42

7

¶43

each is awarded to the appellants No.2 to 4 towards loss parental consortium.

¶44

The amount of compensation fixed on other conventional head is to be increased by 10% after every three years as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), decided on 31^st October, 2017. Accident is of the year 2018, therefore, by enhancing the amount awarded under other conventional heads at the rate of 10% after every three years, the appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs.18150/- (15000+10% increase after 3 years + 3 years) towards loss of estate and funeral expenses i.e. total Rs.36300/- under both the heads. Likewise, each appellant is entitled for Rs.48,400/(40000 + 10% increase after 3 years + 3 years each) i.e. Rs. 1,93,600/- for loss of consortium (spousal & parental)

¶45

For the forgoing discussions the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellants required recomputation, which is as under :-

¶46

S.N.	Head	Amount.
1.	Loss of income/dependency	: Rs.5,09,600.00
2.	For loss of estate + Funeral expenses(18150+ 18150)	: Rs. 36,300.00
3.	For loss of consortium (Rs.48,400 x 4 = Rs.1,93,600/-	: Rs.1,93,600.00
	Total Compensation	: Rs.7,39,500.00

¶47

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.7,39,500.00. Any amount paid to the appellant as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization.

¶48

8

¶49

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above.

¶50

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶51

Balram

Smt. Dulourin Madhukar v. Birat Chhattar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Dulourin Madhukar v. Birat Chhattar

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

Santosh Kumar Chouhan Vs Natwar Sharma

Urmila Vs Akbar Ali

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Bihanu

Navkeet Nirala Vs Navdeep Nirala

Smt. Sunita Lakda Vs Uday Chand

Smt. Tomin Sahu Vs Arun Baghel