Priyanka Paikara Vs Jahid Khan

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:35204

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 118 of 2021

¶6

1 - Priyanka Paikara D/o Late Khedu Singh Paikara Aged About 19 Years R/o Village- Kohraud, Police Station Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 - Jahid Khan S/o Late Abid Khan Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Harvavparza, Ward No. 5, Lakhanpur, Police Station- Lakhanpur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Trailer No. Cg-15, Ac-5032), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Rishi Singhal S/o Pawan Singhal Aged About 29 Years R/o Darripara, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh, (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Trailer No. Cg-15, Ac-5032), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Madina Manjil, Jail Road, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Trailer No. Cg-15, Ac-5032), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - Smt. Sampati Bai Paikara W/o Late Khedu Singh Paikara Aged About 37 Years R/o Village- Kohraud, Police Station Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶13

5 - Minor Sumit Kumar Paikara S/o Late Khedu Singh Paikara Aged About 16 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Sampati Bai Paikara Bai Paikara, R/o VillageKohraud, Police Station Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶14

SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY

¶15

2

¶16

6 - Minor Damani Paikara D/o Late Khedu Singh Paikara Aged About 14 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Sampati Bai Paikara Bai Paikara, R/o VillageKohraud, Police Station Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶17

7 - Minor Sarita Paikara D/o Late Khedu Singh Paikara Aged About 12 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Sampati Bai Paikara Bai Paikara, R/o VillageKohraud, Police Station Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶18

8 - Minor Yogeshwar Prasad Paikara S/o Late Khedu Singh Paikara, Aged About 10 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Sampati Bai Paikara Bai Paikara, R/o Village- Kohraud, Police Station Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶19

9 - Kartik Ram Paikara S/o Chandar Singh Paikara Aged About 65 Years R/o Village- Kohraud, Police Station Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶20

10 - Pyari Bai Paikara W/o Kartik Ram Paikara Aged About 62 Years R/o VillageKohraud, Police Station Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶21

... Respondents

¶22

For Appellant : Mr. S.P. Sannat, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Praveen Tulsiyan, Advocate

¶23

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

¶24

Order On Board

¶25

22/07/2025

¶26

This appeal is filed by the Appellant/Claimant No. 2 seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation in award dated 01.02.2020 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 71/2019.

¶27

The motor-accidental death of Khedu Singh Painkra, involvement of the offending vehicle, Respondent No. 3/Non-Applicant No. 3 to be the

¶28

3

¶29

insurer of the offending vehicle and liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company is not in dispute, hence, this Court is not adverting to the facts as pleaded in the claim application, reply and discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned award. However, this Court is only considering the grounds raised by the appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation and submissions of counsel for the respective parties in this regard.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claimants in the claim application have pleaded income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per month. However, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month only overlooking the date of accident i.e. 25.05.2019. He also contended that the compensation towards loss of consortium is not awarded to children and parents of the deceased. He also contended that though the claim application is filed by the eight claimants, however, the appeal has been filed by the Claimant No. 2 only and the other claimants have been impleaded as Respondents No. 4 to 10.

¶31

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 opposes the submission of counsel for the Appellant/Claimant No. 2 and would submit that in absence of admissible evidence of nature of occupation and income of the deceased, learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month and accordingly, computed and awarded just amount of compensation which does not call for any interference.

¶32

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

¶33

4

¶34

Age of deceased on 25.05.2019 i.e. date of accident, to be 40 years is not disputed. Though, claimants in the claim application pleaded occupation of the deceased as agricultural labourer and earning Rs. 15,000/- however, except the pleadings made in the claim application and the self-serving statements of the claimants/applicants, no admissible piece of evidence is brought on record and therefore, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly taken recourse to assess income of the deceased on notional basis. However, Claims Tribunal fell into error in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month only.

¶35

In the facts of the case, where the claimants failed to prove nature of occupation and income of the deceased, Tribunal ought to have assessed income of the deceased treating him to be Unskilled Labourer and assessed income as per the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The minimum-wages fixed by the competent authority for Unskilled Laboruer of ‘C’ Zone area for the period from 01.04.2019 till 30.09.2019 was Rs. 8,400/- per month and therefore, I find it appropriate to determine income of the deceased as Rs. 8,400/- per month. It is ordered accordingly.

¶36

Learned Claims Tribunal correctly added 25% of the assessed income towards future prospects, deducted 1/5th towards personal and living expenses, applied multiplier of 14 which is in consonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121.

¶37

5

¶38

Learned Claims Tribunal further awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and awarded Rs. 40,000/- consortium to Claimant No. 1/Widow, which is in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) . However, Claims Tribunal has not awarded loss of consortium to children and parents of the deceased. Types of consortium is further explained by Hon’ble Surpeme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram , reported in (2018) 8 SCC 130 as spousal consortium to widow/widower, parental consortium to children and filial consortium to parents. In case at hand, the Appellants/Claimants No. 2 to 6 are children and Claimants No. 7 & 8 are parents of the deceased, therefore, they are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of parental and filial consortium (total Rs. 2,80,000/-) respectively. It is ordered accordingly.

¶39

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Pranay Sethi (Supra) has observed that there shall be increase of 10% on the amount of compensation awarded under other conventional heads and therefore, the amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate is to be increased by 10%. It is ordered accordingly.

¶40

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

¶41

S.	Heads		Compensation
No.
1.	(A)Loss of Income/Dependency	:	Rs. 14,11,200/-
	8400 X 12 =1,00,800/-

¶42

6

¶43

	(B)Addition towards future prospects @ 25% (1,00,800 X 25% = 25,200) (1,00,800 + 25,200 = 1,26,000) (C)Deduction of 1/5th towards personal and living expenses (1,26,000 X 1/5th = 25,200) (1,26,000 – 25,200 = 1,00,800/-) (D)Multiplier of 14 (1,00,800 X 14 = 14,11,200/-)
2.	Funeral Expenses	: (+)Rs. 16,500/-
3.	Loss of Estate	: (+)Rs. 16,500/-
4.	Loss of spousal, parental and filial consortium to Claimants/Appellants @Rs. 44,000/- each(44,000 X 8)	: (+) Rs. 3,52,000/-
	Total Compensation	: Rs. 17,96,200/-

¶44

Now, the Appellant/Claimant No. 2 and other claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs. 17,96,200/- . This enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶45

Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellant as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above.

¶46

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

¶47

Certified copy as per rules.

¶48

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

¶49

Dey

Priyanka Paikara v. Jahid Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Paikara v. Jahid Khan

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

Hemkumar Maheshwari Vs Santosh Kumar Verma

The United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Narendra Kashyap

Miss Anita Mitra Vs Lalit Mohan Singh Dev

Mohokumari Vs Jitender Singh

Dipak Kumar Sahu Vs Mayank Sharma

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Smt. Ramkali Dhiwar