Meena Xalxo Vs Ranjeet Paikra

Ranjeet Paikra S/o Sahdev Paikra Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Parpatiya, Baigapara Police Station Kamleshwarpur Tehsil Manpath , District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ( Owner )

¶15

Ramprasad Agariya S/o Surjan Ram Agariya Aged About 30 Years R/o Mainpath (Paiga) Police Station Kamleshwarpur Tehsil Manpath District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ( Driver )

¶16

Chola Mandalam General Insurance Company And Finance Company Through Branch Manager, Address Simram Tower, 2nd Floor In Front of L.I.C. Office Pandri Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer )

¶17

--- Respondents/ Non-applicants

¶18

For Appellants : Mr. Pavas Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Shrishti Upadhyay, Advocate on behalf of D.L. Dewangan, Advocate

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶20

18/07/2025

¶21

Judgment On Board

¶22

PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA

¶23

2 / 6

¶24

Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the award dated 11.01.2021 passed by Learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, FTC, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 150/2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 21,27,936/- as compensation in motor accidental death case.

¶25

Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 02.05.2019, Anil Toppo while riding his motorcycle bearing number CG15 CM 9850 was going to Lakhanpur from P.S. Kunni for some of his official work. When he reached village Katinda, non-applicant No. 2 while driving truck bearing number CG15 DC 6090 (hereinafter referred to as “offending truck”) rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle of Anil Toppo and caused accident. In the accident, Anil Toppo suffered fatal injuries and died on spot.

¶26

Applicants-claimants, widow, children and parents of deceased- Anil Toppo, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 82,40,000/- pleading therein that deceased on the date of accident was a healthy person aged about 32 years. He was working as Home Guard and earning ₹ 14,000 per month and apart from it he was doing the work of Animal Husbandry from which he was earning ₹ 10,000 per month and thereby earning ₹ 24,000 per month.

¶27

Respondents No. 1 & 2/ Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 -driver and owner of the offending truck did not file reply to the application, and remained ex parte.

¶28

Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company filed reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that on the date of accident the offending truck was being plied in breach of policy conditions, there was no valid fitness

¶29

3 / 6

¶30

certificate, permit and non-applicant No. 2- driver of offending truck was not possessed with valid and effective driving licence to drive the truck. It was also stated that deceased himself was negligent in the accident. Thus, in such a situation, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation, if awarded.

¶31

Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased -Anil Toppo died on spot because of grievous injuries suffered by him in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending truck owned by non-applicaqnt No. 1 and driven by non-applicant No. 2. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved. Tribunal calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 21,27,936/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization and fastened the liability to satisfy the award upon non-applicants therein, jointly and severally.

¶32

Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that Claims Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of compensation by assessing income of deceased as ₹ 12,990 per month only, whereas as per Ext. P-1 salary proved by the employee of District Commandant Office, Home Guard, Ambikapur, he was being paid ₹ 13,200 per month. He also contended that the Claims Tribunal erred in adding only 10% of the assessed income towards loss of future prospects instead of 40% has held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors ,

¶33

reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and further all the claimants have not been awarded compensation towards loss of consortium who are widow, children and parents of the deceased.

¶34

Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants-claimants and would submit

¶35

4 / 6

¶36

that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case is just and proper and it does not call for any interference.

¶37

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

¶38

Claimants in the application have pleaded that the deceased on the date of accident was working as Home Guard and he was being paid ₹ 14,000 per month as salary. To support the said pleading made in the claim application, claimants examined Sanjay Kumar Gupta as AW-1 who is Asst.Gr.III posted in the office of District Commandant, Home Guard, Ambikapur and have also produced salary certificate vide Ext. P-1. From the documentary and oral evidence, it is apparent that the deceased was being paid ₹ 13,200 per month as honorary salary. Claims Tribunal while computing the salary/ income of deceased after considering deduction made therein, assessed the income of deceased as ₹ 12,992. The deduction is not statutory deduction against tax and therefore in the opinion of this Court Claims Tribunal erred in deducting ₹ 208 from the salary of the deceased which is not sustainable. The income of deceased has to be assessed as ₹ 13,200 per month. It is ordered accordingly.

¶39

Claims Tribunal has added 10% towards future prospects which also in the opinion of this Court is erroneous. The award of compensation to claimant(s) towards future prospects has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and held that where the deceased was below 40 years age and not in permanent employment, there shall be addition of 40% of the established income.

¶40

In view of the aforementioned facts of the case and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is directed that there shall be addition of 40% of the established income to the income of deceased for ascertaining total income to compute the amount of compensation. Claims Tribunal has further awarded only ₹ 70,000 under the heads of loss of consortium of ₹ 40,000,

¶41

5 / 6

¶42

loss of estate of ₹ 15,000 and funeral expenses as ₹ 15,000, as quantified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) . The award of compensation under the head of loss of consortium to children and parents is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General

¶43

Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others

¶44

reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , wherein it is held that the children and parents of the deceased shall also be entitled for compensation under the head of loss of parental consortium and loss of filial consortium of ₹ 40,000 each respectively . In the case at hand, appellants No. 2 & 3 are children and appellants No. 4 & 5 are parents, therefore, they are also entitled for loss of parental consortium and loss of filial consortium of ₹ 40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. Tribunal has further applied deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses and multiplier of 16, which are correctly applied in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma &

¶45

others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.

¶46

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has further observed that compensation under the head of other conventional heads is to be increased by 10% in every three years and therefore amount of compensation under the heads of funeral expenses would be ₹ 16,500, loss of estate would be ₹ 16,500, and loss of consortium would be ₹ 44,000 each.

¶47

For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to

¶48

appellants-claimants requires re-computation, which is as under.

¶49

Particulars	Compensation
• Annual Loss of income/ dependency =	₹ 26,61,120/-
₹ 1,58,400/- (₹ 13,200x12)
• Addition towards loss of future prospects @
40% (₹ 1,58,400 + 40% of ₹ 1,58,400 = ₹ 2,21,760)
• Deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living
expenses( ₹ 2,21,760x 1/4= ₹ 55,440);
₹ 2,21,760 - ₹ 55,440 = ₹ 1,66,320/-

¶50

6 / 6

¶51

• Multiplier of 16
₹ 1,66,320 x 16 = ₹ 26,61,120/-
Loss of Spousal Consortium to Appellant No. 1	₹ 44,000/-
Loss of parental consortium to Appellants No. 2	₹ 1,76,000/-
& 3; and Loss of Filial Consortium to Appellants No. 4 & 5 (₹ 44,000 each)
Loss of estate	₹ 16,500/-
Funeral Expenses	₹ 16,500/-
Total	₹ 29,14,120/-

¶52

Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 29,14,120/- instead of ₹ 21,27,936/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization.

¶53

Any amount paid to the appellants-claimants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Rest of the conditions as imposed by the Claims Tribunal in the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶54

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

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶57

pwn

Meena Xalxo v. Ranjeet Paikra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena Xalxo v. Ranjeet Paikra

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 Jaleshwar Singh Sahu

Smt. Savita Sidar Vs Suryanath Kumar

Smt. Sonmati Kashyap Vs Naresh Kumar Kumhar

Mithlesh Changa Vs Shiv Bagas @ Vikash Sahu

Bandhan Singh Vs Itwar Singh

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Ganga Bai