Smt. Manju Yadav Vs B. Ram

¶1

Digitally signed by SAURABH 1 SAURABH YADAV YADAV Date: 2025.06.13 17:18:17 +0530

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 1158 of 2016

¶5

1. Smt. Manju Yadav W/o Late Sureet Yadav, Aged About 28 Years

¶6

2. Ku. Sheetal Yadav, D/o Late Sureet Yadav, Aged About 10 Years

¶7

3. Akhil Kumar Yadav, S/o Late Sureet Yadav, Aged About 7 Years

¶8

4. Ganesh Yadav, S/o Late Lakhan Yadav, Aged About 60 Years Appellant No. 2 and 3 minor through Mother Smt. Manju Yadav W/o Late Sureet Yadav

¶9

All are R/o- Village- Kala Khogha, P.S. and Tahsil- Chhuikhadan, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

1. B. Ram S/o B. Dashrat, aged about 28 years R/o Balaji Nagar Zone2, Sector Khursipar Bhilai, P.S.- Khursipar, District: Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶13

2. Nagendra Kumar Pandey, R/o- Songanga Colony, P.O. S.E.C.L. Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

3. H.D.F.C. Agro General Insurance Company Ltd. 2005-2006, Dm Tower 2nd Floor At Jangir Square Race Course Road Indore, District : Indore, Madhya Pradesh

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Appellants : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate

¶17

2

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

¶19

Judgment on Board

¶20

13.06.2025

¶21

1. This appeal is by the claimants against the award dated 23.01.2016 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh, District: Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 15 of 2015, awarding total compensation of Rs. 4,52,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till realization while fastening liability on the respondents, jointly and severally.

¶22

2. As per averments made in the claim petition, on 09.11.2014, deceased- Sureet Yadav was going for work towards Gandai Bazar from his Village: Kala Khoda on his vehicle bearing registration No. CG 04 HK 2537, when he reached near petrol pump, the respondent No. 1, while driving the Terax (J.C.B.) bearing registration No. CG 10 DA 8512 (hereinafter referred as 'offending vehicle') dashed the deceased due to which the deceased sustained injuries and died. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3/insurance company.

¶23

3. On claim petition being filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 37,50,000/-, the Tribunal, considering the evidence led by both the parties, passed an award as mentioned above.

¶24

4. Counsel for the appellants submits that the claimant was a driver and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month and the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month on notional basis, whereas it should be Rs. 5,000/- per month looking to the nature of work of the deceased as well as considering

¶25

3

¶26

the minimum wages provision as on the date of accident minimum wages for unskilled labour was more than Rs. 5,000/- per month. He further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects and that amount awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads is also on lower side, which needs to be enhanced suitably. He further submits that all the four claimants are dependents upon the deceased, therefore, the applicable deduction would be ¼ in place of 1/3, as assessed by the Tribunal. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 & Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130.

¶27

5. Counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company, while admitting that no separate appeal has been filed against the impugned award, submits that the deceased was aged between 28-30 years, as assessed by the Claims Tribunal, therefore, applicable multiplier would be 17 in place of 18.

¶28

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶29

7. As regards the income of the deceased- Sureet Yadav, though the claimants in the claim petition have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by working as driver, but no documentary evidence in support of thereof has been adduced by the claimants to substantiate the said pleading. However, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month on notional basis, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not correct. Therefore, considering the Minimum Wages provisions

¶30

4

¶31

prevailed at the relevant time of accident and the nature of work of the deceased, I propose to recompute the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- instead of Rs. 3,000/- and accordingly, the annual income is worked out Rs. 60,000/- per annum.

¶32

8. Moreover, the Tribunal has erred in not granting any amount towards future prospects, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not just and proper. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) has considered 40% towards loss of future prospects for the self-employed persons who are below 40 years. Therefore, in the present case, looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 28-30 years, as assessed by the Tribunal, the applicable percentage towards future prospects would be 40%. Further, the appellants are four in number and they are the dependents upon the deceased, whereas, the Tribunal deducted 1/3 towards personal and living expenses of the deceased which is not sustainable and the Tribunal ought to have deducted ¼ looking to the number of dependents upon the deceased. Accordingly, I propose to deduct ¼ income from the total annual income of the deceased instead of 1/3 as made by the Tribunal.

¶33

9. Further, taking the guidance from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, Pranay Sethi (supra) & Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), this Court computes the compensation in the following manner:-

¶34

Sl.	Heads	Calculation
No.		(in rupees)
01.	Income of the deceased @ Rs.5,000/- per month	Rs.60,000/- per annum

¶35

5

¶36

02.	40% of (i) above to be added towards future prospects.	Rs.24,000/- Total Income: Rs. 84,000/-
03.	¼ deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased	Rs. 21,000/- Total: Rs. 84,000-21,000 = Rs. 63,000/-
04.	Multiplier of 17 to be applied	Rs. 63,000/- x 17 = Rs. 10,71,000/-
05.	Towards Conventional Heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium)	Rs. 1,60,000 (Rs. 40,000 x 4) + Rs. 15,000+Rs. 15,000/- = Rs. 1,90,000/-
	Total Compensation	Rs.12,61,000/-

¶37

Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 4,52,000/-, after deducting the same from Rs. 12,61,000/-, the appellants are entitled for additional compensation of Rs. 8,09,000/- , which shall carry interest as awarded by the Tribunal. However, rest of the terms and conditions shall remain intact.

¶38

10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with the modification in the impugned award to the above extent.

¶39

Sd/( Radhakishan Agrawal ) JUDGE

¶40

Saurabh

Smt. Manju Yadav v. B. Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Manju Yadav v. B. Ram

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

Devendra Kumar Dhruv Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Lakhanlal Soni

Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Mundrika Prasad Gupta

Dabal @ Chandradeep Jaiswal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Rohit Yadav

Smt. Nisha Yadav and Anr. Vs Satish Yadav