Lalchand Vs Bickky Kumar Soni

1 - Bickky Kumar Soni S/o Munna Lal Soni Aged About 26 Years Occupation Driver R/o Village Karoundha (Sarnapara) Police Station Bhatgaon, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

2 - Vivek Agrawal S/o Ishwarchand Agrawal Aged About 38 Years Occupation Business, R/o Mahamaya, Road, Bouripara, Ambikapur, Police Staton And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶13

3 - H.D.F.C. Egro General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Office Ranilaxmi Nagar, Ward No. 30, Near Rama Magnato Mall 1st Floor Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶14

--- Respondents

¶15

BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN

¶16

For Appellants : Ms. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Prashant Kumar Sahu on behalf of Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate

¶17

2

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶19

Order On Board

¶20

20/06/2025

¶21

Claimants/appellants have 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, Surjapur, District – Surajpur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 26.02.2019 passed in Claim Case No.56/2018 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.6,42,000/- as compensation in a death case.

¶22

Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming total compensation of Rs.36,60,000/- under different heads on account of the death of Sujit Kumar, who died in the road accident pleading therein that on 20.03.2018 at about 10.30 AM, Sujit Kumar was going to Surajpur from his village Beltikari. When he reached near village Tilsiva at the same time, respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle truck bearing registration No.C.G.-15A-1875 driving it in a rash and negligent manner dashed Sujit Kumar from rear side due to which he suffered severe injuries and succumbed to the injuries. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased was 28 years of age and was doing agriculture work as also the business of milk selling. It was further pleaded that due to her untimely death, the appellants/claimants suffered irreparable loss.

¶23

The non-applicants/respondents filed their reply to the claim application and resisted the claim of the claimants. It was pleaded by

¶24

3

¶25

the non-applicant No.1 that accident occurred due to self negligence of the deceased himself. The claim application was filed exaggerating the amount of compensation. The non-applicant No.3 in its reply denied the happening of the accident with the offending vehicle. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. It was further pleaded that the non-applicant No.1 was not having any valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle and there was breach of conditions of insurance policy.

¶26

The learned Claims Tribunal after appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.6,42,000/-.

¶27

Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding meager amount of compensation. Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on lower side. The date of accident is 20.03.2018, the claimants in the claim application have pleaded that on the date of accident, the deceased was working as agricultural labourer and was also doing the business of milk selling and thereby earning Rs.10,000/- per month. It is contended that the learned Claims Tribunal failed to add any amount towards future prospects in the income of the deceased. He further contended that the amount awarded under other conventional head is also on lower side. He prays that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced.

¶28

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 -Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants and submits that the

¶29

4

¶30

amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case is just and proper, which does not call for any interference.

¶31

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

¶32

It is not in dispute that the accident is of 20.03.2018. Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month only treating the nature of occupation of the deceased on the date of accident to be labourer. True it is that claimant could not able to prove the nature of employment as also the income of the deceased by producing clinching evidence. However, in the facts of the case, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken the factors like rise in price index, place of resident, date of accident and the wages prevailing at the place where deceased was resident of. The learned Claims Tribunal could have also taken note of minium wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. As per the notification issued by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, monthly income of the labourer prevailing from 01.10.2017 till 31.03.2018 for unskilled labour has been fixed as Rs.7,800/-, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the monthly income of the deceased is to be assessed as Rs.7,800/-. It is ordered accordingly.

¶33

The learned Claims Tribunal has not added any amount towards future prospects in the income of the deceased. As on the date of accident, deceased was aged about 28 years, therefore, as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company

¶34

5

¶35

Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, there shall be addition of 40% towards the future prospects in the income of the deceased. It is ordered accordingly.

¶36

Learned Claims Tribunal has rightly applied the deduction of 1/2 towards personal living expenses as the deceased on the date of accident was unmarried. The multiplier of 17 applied by the learned Claims Tribunal is in tune with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121,

¶37

The learned Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and for funeral expenses, however, failed to award any amount towards loss of consortium, however, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the claimants are to be awarded under the head of loss of consortium. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 has explained the type of consortium and held that there are three types of loss of consortium i.e. loss of spousal consortium for widow/widower, loss of parental consortium to the children and loss of filial consortium to parents. The appellants are being the parents of the deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium. It is ordered accordingly.

¶38

On the basis of above, the compensation calculated by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :-

¶39

6

¶40

SN	Head		Amount(in Rs.).
1.	Annual income	:	7,800 x 12 = 93,600.00
2.	Addition of 40% towards future prospects	:	93,600.00 + 37,440.00 = 1,31,040.00
3.	1/2 deduction towards personal expenses	:	1,31,040.00 – 65,520.00= 65,520.00
4.	Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 17	:	65,520 x 17= 11,13,840.00
5.	For loss of filial consortium to the appellants Rs.40,000/- each(40,000 x 2)	:	80,000.00
6.	For funeral expenses	:	15,000.00
7.	For loss of estate	:	15,000.00
	Grand Total	:	12,23,840.00

¶41

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.12,23,840.00. Any amount paid to the appellants as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶42

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

¶43

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶44

Balram

Lalchand v. Bickky Kumar Soni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalchand v. Bickky Kumar Soni

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

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Sanjay Netam

Kheek Bai Vs Bheem Kaushik

Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Radhika Bai Kosle

Branch Manager Cholamandlam General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Sunita Sahu

Smt. Rani Kori Vs Vijay Kumar Vastrakar

Deepak Vs Sushil Yadav