Smt. Rani Kori Vs Vijay Kumar Vastrakar

Vijay Kumar Vastrakar S/o Vishambhar Prasad Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Ghutku, P.S. Koni, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Present Address - Village Parsada Police Station Chakarbhata District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Driver) Vehicle Owner Motor Cycle No. Cg10-Af-3780).

¶15

Manohar Koushik S/o Radhelal Koushik, R/o Ward No. 20 Awas Para Parsada, P.S. Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner) Vehicle Motor Cycle No. Cg10-Af3780).

¶16

United India Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager Divisional Office Second Floor Gurukripa Tower Vyapar Vihar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶17

2

¶18

(Insurance Company) Vehicle Owner Motor Cycle No. Cg10Af-3780).

¶19

... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Shalini Jhangel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.K.Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent No.1& 2 : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board

¶21

20/06/2025

¶22

Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned 5^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 30.1.2019 in Claim Case No.150/2018 for the death of deceased Ramesh Kori in a road accident.

¶23

Facts of the case, in brief, are that appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.74,50,000/- under various heads, for death of Ramesh Kumar Kori in a motor vehicular accident. According to claimants, who are widow, children and mother of deceased, on 10.1.2018 at about 7:30 p.m. when Ramesh Kumar Kori was coming to village Nexa, the motorcycle bearing CG10AF-3780, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver (non-applicant No.1), dashed him as a result Ramesh Kumar Kori sustained grievous injuries. He was

¶24

3

¶25

taken to Government Hospital, Ratanpur where he was declared dead.

¶26

Driver and owner of offending motorcycle jointly filed reply denying allegation of negligent driving and further pleading that at the time of accident non-applicant No.1-driver was having valid and effective driving license, the offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3, who is liable to make payment of compensation. Non-applicant No.3Insurance Company also filed a separate reply and took a stand that rider of offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.

¶27

The Claims Tribunal upon analyzing the pleadings and evidence brought on record by the parties, came to the conclusion that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by non-applicant No.1 which resulted in death of deceased; disbelieved version of claimants that deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month by running a stall of tea-snacks by recording that claimant failed to prove the occupation and income of deceased by placing any documentary evidence in that regard. It was also held that there was no violation of any of the conditions of insurance policy. Consequently, the Claims Tribunal allowed application

¶28

4

¶29

in part, awarded compensation of Rs.12,69,600/- and fastened liability upon the non-applicants, jointly and severally, to satisfy the award.

¶30

Learned counsel for claimants/appellants submits that income of deceased has not been properly assessed by the Claims Tribunal. He next contended that learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding amount towards loss of consortium to all the dependent family members of deceased and even the amount awarded under the head of funeral expenses and loss of estate is not in consonance with the law settled in this regard. Therefore, he prays that amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced.

¶31

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents supporting the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper.

¶32

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused record of claim case including impugned award.

¶33

So far as income of the deceased is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has assessed income of deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month only, which is not just and proper. The accident occurred on 10.1.2018 and deceased was resident of District Bilaspur, which comes within the category of ‘B’ Zone, therefore, considering the minimum wage rate prescribed by

¶34

5

¶35

the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for an unskilled labour Zone ‘B’ category, for the relevant period, the income of the deceased is fixed as Rs.7,800/- per month.

¶36

Addition of future prospects to the assessed income of deceased; deduction towards personal expenses of deceased and multiplier applied by the Claims Tribunal to assess the loss of dependency is in consonance with the law in this regard and the same need no interference.

¶37

Perusal of impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the widow of deceased only and Rs.10,000/- each for funeral expenses and loss of estate. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & others , (2018) 18 SCC 130 , the children and parents of victim died in a road accident are also entitled for consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/each under the head ‘parental consortium’ and filial consortium. Thus, other claimants being children and mother of the deceased would also be entitled to parental consortium and filial consortium in the sum of Rs.40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly.

¶38

Further, in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680,

¶39

6

¶40

the Hon’ble Supreme Court has approved Rs.15,000/- each for the conventional heads i.e. loss of estate and funeral expenses, and therefore, the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal under the head ‘funeral expenses’ and ‘loss of estate’ is on lower side and requires to be enhanced accordingly.

¶41

12.For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants.

¶42

13.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.7,800/- per month and after adding 40% towards future prospects, monthly income of deceased would come to Rs.10,920/- and annual income would be Rs.1,31,040/-. Out of this amount, one-fourth is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased, as deducted by the Claims Tribunal, and after deducting one-fourth, loss of dependency would come to Rs.98,280/-. Applying multiplier of 16, as applied by Claims Tribunal, the loss of dependency would be Rs.15,72,800/- (98280 x16). Besides this, appellant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium; appellant No.2 to 4 are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium and appellant No.5, mother of deceased, is entitled for Rs.40,000/- for loss of filial consortium. In addition to aforesaid amount, appellants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate. Thus, total amount of

¶43

7

¶44

compensation for which now appellants-claimants are entitled, comes to Rs.18,02,480/- This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of application till actual payment is made. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount disbursed to appellants pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted from the amount of compensation as awarded above.

¶45

14.In the result, both the appeals are allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated

¶46

SYED ROSHAN above.

¶47

ZAMIR ALI

¶48

Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI

¶49

Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶50

roshan/

Smt. Rani Kori v. Vijay Kumar Vastrakar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rani Kori v. Vijay Kumar Vastrakar

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

Deepak Vs Sushil Yadav

Lalchand Vs Bickky Kumar Soni