Smt. Vrinda Bai Vs Santosh Chandra

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:25174

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 1087 of 2019

¶6

1 - Smt. Vrinda Bai W/o Late Chambal Chandra Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Sarasdol, Police Station- Malkharoda, District- Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Budhwari Bazar, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - Mayank Chandra S/o Late Chambal Chandra Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Vrinda Bai, R/o Village Sarasdol, Police Station- Malkharoda, DistrictJanjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Budhwari Bazar, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶8

3 - Lal Bahadur Chandra S/o Late Shiv Lal Chandra Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Sarasdol, Police Station- Malkharoda, District- Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Budhwari Bazar, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶9

4 - Smt. Krishna Bai W/o Lal Bahadu Chandra Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Sarasdol, Police Station- Malkharoda, District- Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Budhwari Bazar, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Appelants

¶11

Versus

¶12

1 - Santosh Chandra S/o Jageshwar Chandra Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Sarasdola, Police Station Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, At Present Sector-5, Balco Nagar, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh.............Driver., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶13

2 - Smt. Leela Devi Agrawal W/o Subhash Chandra Agrawal R/o Anand Bhawan, Apartment Sumangal Apartment, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh...................Owner., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY

¶15

2

¶16

3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through The Divisional Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Sada Complex, Taxi Stand, T P Nagar, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶17

4 - Hemant Kumar Chandra S/o Subilal R/o Ganesh Nagar, Chuichuiha Para, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.................Insurer., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

For Appellants : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Siddharth Rathod, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate

¶20

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶21

Order On Board

¶22

18/06/2025

¶23

This appeal is filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 12.12.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba, District – Korba (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 75/2017.

¶24

Facts of the case in brief are that, on 11.07.2017, Chambal Chandra (since deceased) was traveling towards Malkharauda from Jamtai in a Innova Car bearing registration no. CG 10 AF 5835 and when he reached near Village Tarra, P.S. Panduka, District - Gariyaband, at that time, tyre of the said car bursts, met with an accident with a tree beside the road. In the said accident, son of the applicant i.e. deceased Chambal Chandra suffered serious injuries and he succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Subsequent to the said accident, an FIR was registered bearing Crime No. 69/2017, P.S. Panduka, District - Gariyaband for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶25

The appellants/claimants in the claim application have pleaded that the deceased was aged about 28 years, was doing the work of Mason and

¶26

3

¶27

earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. Due to said accident, the appellants/claimants have lost the bread winner of their family, claimed Rs. 63,08,000/- towards compensation.

¶28

The Non-Applicants No. 1 opposing the pleadings made by the claimants before the learned Claims Tribunal have pleaded that in the said accident, son of the Non-Applicant No. 1 also died. On the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company and the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing valid and effective driving license.

¶29

The Non-Applicant No. 2 in reply submitted before the learned Claims Tribunal pleaded that on the date of accident, Non-Applicant No. 2 was not having ownership of the offending vehicle as it was sold to the NonApplicant NO. 4 prior to the date of accident. Even if the applicants/claimants are found entitled for compensation, liability to pay the same shall be fastened upon the Non-Applicant No. 3, as on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the NonApplicant No. 3.

¶30

The Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company submitted reply pleading that though the offending vehicle i.e. Innova Car bearing registration No. CG 10 AF 5835 was insured with the Non-Applicant No. 3 on the date of accident, however, the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving license. It was not having the fitness certificate,valid permit, but the owner of the vehicle ignoring the said fact was plying the vehicle in breach of conditions of insurance policy, hence, they are not liable to satisfy the award.

¶31

4

¶32

The Non-Applicant No. 4 also objected to the pleadings made in the claim application and further pleaded that liability if any, to pay compensation will be of Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company.

¶33

The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the facts and evidence brought on record, held that death of deceased was on account of motor accidental injuries, on the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 28 years and earning Rs. 9,800/-, have awarded Rs. 15,69,400/- to the claimants/appellants fastened liability upon Non-Applicant No. 3.

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this appeal is filed seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation on the ground that amount of compensation awarded under other heads is very less. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 70,000/- on other conventional heads by awarding loss of spousal consortium to the Appellant No. 1 and have not awarded loss of consortium to the Appellant No. 2/minor child and Appellants No. 3 & 4 who are parents of the deceased. Hence, he prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation suitably.

¶35

On the other hand, learned counsels for the Non-appellants No. 2 & 3/Insurance Company opposes the submission of counsel for the appellants/claimants and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal considering entirety of the facts pleaded and the evidence available on record has awarded just amount of compensation under other conventional heads which does not call for any interference.

¶36

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case and the copy of the award passed.

¶37

5

¶38

The short question as raised by the counsel for the appellant that the learned Claims Tribunal fell into error in not awarding the compensation under head of loss of consortium to the Appellants No. 2 to 4. Award of compensation under the head of loss of consortium to children and parents of a deceased has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram , reported in (2018) 8 SCC. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the types of consortium and held that the there are three types of consortium i.e. spousal consortium for widow/widower, parental consortium to children and filial consortium to parents. In the case at hand, the Appellants No. 2 is minor child of the deceased and Appellants No. 3 & 4 are parents of the deceased and therefore, they are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of parental and filial consortium (total Rs. 1,20,000/-) respectively. It is ordered accordingly.

¶39

For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants.

¶40

The learned Claims Tribunal has correctly awarded compensation under head of loss of dependency to the tune of Rs. 14,99,400/- which does not call for any interference. Apart from the loss of dependency, the appellants would also be entitled for Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Besides this, Appellants No. 1 to 4 are entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards spousal, parental and filial consortium, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Magma General Insurance (Supra) .

¶41

Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.16,89,400/- (14,99,400 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000).

¶42

6

¶43

This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶44

Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants No. 1 to 4 as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above.

¶45

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

¶46

Certified copy as per rules.

¶47

Sd/- -------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶48

Dey

Smt. Vrinda Bai v. Santosh Chandra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vrinda Bai v. Santosh Chandra

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. Gulawati Sahu Vs Sunil Dwivedi

Bhajan Singh Painkara Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jalil Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Shikha Meshram Vs Alok Kumar Singh

Mohammad Sagir Vs Rinu Bibi

Rajkumar Kurre Vs Santosh Chandra