Smt. Savitri Patel Vs Santosh Kumar Dandekar

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:27188

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 1252 of 2019

¶6

1 - Smt. Savitri Patel W/o Late Ajay Kumar Patel Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Tuman, Gram Panchayat-Tuman Urga, Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - Ku. Kiran Patel D/o Late Ajay Kumar Patel Aged About 14 Years Minor Represented Through Mother And Legal Guardian Smt. Savitri W/o Late Ajay Kumar Patel, R/o Village Tuman, Gram Panchayat-Tuman Urga, Tahsil And DistrictKorba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶8

3 - Anil Patel S/o Late Ajay Kumar Patel Aged About 13 Years Minor Represented Through Mother And Legal Guardian Smt. Savitri W/o Late Ajay Kumar Patel, R/o Village Tuman, Gram Panchayat-Tuman Urga, Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh............(Claimants), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

1 - Santosh Kumar Dandekar S/o Baisakhu Dandekar Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Dhaurabhantha, Hirri, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.............. (Vehicle Driver), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - Rajat Mittal S/o Suresh Mittal R/o Village Pathalgaon,in Front Of Gurudwara, Tahsil- Pathhalgaon, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh............(Owner), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - Magma Hdi General Insurance Company Limited Through The Divisional Office, Magma House-24 Part Street Kolkata 700016, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Behind Gayatri Mandir, T.P. Nagar, Korba, Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh..............(Insuer).............(Non-Applicants), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Non-appellants

¶15

For Appellants : Mr. Adiya Khare, Advocate

¶16

SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY

¶17

2

¶18

For Non-appellants No. 1 : Mr. Vishwanath Shriwas, Advocate

¶19

& 2

¶20

For Non-appellant No. 3 : Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate

¶21

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

¶22

Order On Board

¶23

24/06/2025

¶24

Heard on I.A. No. 01/2019 which is an application for condonation of delay of 837 days in filing of the appeal.

¶25

Learned counsel for the respective respondents opposes the submission of counsel for the appellants as also, the pleadings made in the application.

¶26

On due consideration of the submission for the counsel for the respective parties and considering the pleadings made in the application and further, the appeal is filed by the claimants/appellants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, I.A. No. 01/2019 is allowed. Delay of 837 days in filing of the appeal is condoned.

¶27

Appeal is admitted for hearing.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this appeal may be disposed of at the motion stage itself. The claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation on the ground that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded the compensation under the head of loss of future prospects and further, the amount of compensation under the other heads is not appropriately awarded. He submits that both the grounds have been well-settled and dealt by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram reported in (2018) 8 SCC.

¶29

3

¶30

He also submits that the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is jointly and severally upon the Non-appellants No. 1 to 3 and the first liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is against the Nonappellant No. 3/Insurance company.

¶31

Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 do not dispute the submission for the counsel appellants that the percentage of the increase in income for assessing the loss of future prospect as also, the amount of compensation under the other heads is also quantified. He further pointed out that the learned Claims Tribunal though recorded the age of the deceased as 35 years, but have applied the multiplier of 17 instead of 16. He further do not dispute the submission of counsel for the appellant with regard to the hearing of this case finally at the motion stage.

¶32

With the consent of parties, this case is heard finally.

¶33

As the counsel for respective parties has not disputed the facts, but have only submitted that the amount of compensation is to be enhanced based on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and Nanu Ram (Supra), therefore, the appeal is heard finally at the motion stage.

¶34

10.This appeal is filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 29.09.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba, District – Korba (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 111/2015.

¶35

11.Facts of the case in brief are that, on 29.08.2015, when Ajay Kumar Patel (since deceased) was traveling towards his home i.e. Village Tuman on his motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 10 AH 1726 from Village Hinganjjariya after celebrating Rakhi Festival and reached near

¶36

4

¶37

Nonbirra Dam, Korba, at that relevant time, the offending vehicle i.e Truck bearing registration no. CG 19 AH 1972 which was being driven by the Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of Ajay Kumar Patel and caused accident. In the said accident, Ajay Kumar Patel suffered serious injuries and he succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Subsequent to the said accident, an FIR was registered against the Respondent No. 1 in the concerned police station.

¶38

In the claim application, the appellants/claimants have pleaded that the deceased Ajay Kumar Patel was aged about 35 years, was doing the work of Labourer and earning Rs. 15000/- per month. The claimants were dependent on the deceased for their livelihood and claimed compensation of Rs. 54,56,000/-

¶39

The Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 in reply pleaded that the vehicle was driven by the Respondent No. 1 in accordance with the rules and it was the deceased who was driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, he caused accident with the Truck of the Non-appellants no. 1 & 2. They further contended that on the date of accident, the Truck driven by Non-Applicant No. 1 and owned by Non-Applicant No. 2 was insured with the Respondent No. 3, hence, the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon the Respondent No. 3.

¶40

The Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company contended before the learned Claims Tribunal that on the date of accident, the Respondent No. 1 was not possessing a valid and effective driving license as also, there was no valid permit and fitness certificate of the offending vehicle and thus, there was breach of conditions of the

¶41

5

¶42

insurance policy. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to satisfy the amount of compensation and the same is upon the Non-Applicants No. 1 & 2.

¶43

Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that the deceased Ajay Kumar Patel died because of grievous injuries suffered in an accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No. 1/Driver of the offending vehicle. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded Rs. 9,06,784/- as total compensation with interest 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application and fastened liability to satisfy the amount of compensation jointly and severally upon the non-applicants.

¶44

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal while computing the amount of compensation against the death of late Ajay Kumar Patel has assessed the income as Rs. 5969/per month, taking note of the minimum wages as fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for Unskilled Labourer. However, the learned Claims Tribunal fell into error in not adding 40% of assessed income towards the loss of future prospects as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) . He next contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal on other heads is also on lower side and prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation suitably.

¶45

Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company while opposing the submission of the counsel for the appellant would submit that the amount of compensation is just and proper and does not call

¶46

6

¶47

for any interference. He next contended that if this Court is considering the submission of counsel for the appellant seeking for enhancement of the amount of compensation, it may also be considered that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in applying multiplier of 17 instead of 16 for assessment of the amount of compensation because, on the date of accident, deceased was 35 years of age,.

¶48

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

¶49

The income assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal is not in dispute. The age of the deceased as 35 years is also not disputed by the counsel for the respective parties. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the claimants/appellants are entitled for the amount of compensation under the head of loss of future prospects as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). As the deceased was 35 years of age and less than 40 years of age, therefore, there shall be addition of 40% of the assessed income. It is ordered accordingly. On the date of accident, the deceased was 35 years of age and therefore, there shall be application of multiplier of 16 instead of 17 as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) . It is ordered accordingly.

¶50

Perusal of the award would show that the learned Claims Tribunal awarded a consolidated amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the Appellant No. 1 towards loss of love and affection and awarded Rs. 10,000/- each to the Appellants No. 2 & 3/parents of the deceased and further awarded Rs. 25,000/- towards the funeral expenses which is not in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and Nanu Ram (Supra) which is not sustainable.

¶51

7

¶52

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nanu Ram (Supra) has explained the types of consortium and held that the there are three types of consortium i.e. spousal consortium for wife/husband, parental consortium to children and filial consortium to parents. In the case at hand, the Appellant No. 1 will be entitled for Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium and Appellants No. 2 & 3 being children are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium (total Rs. 1,20,000/-). It is ordered accordingly. Apart from the above, the appellants/claimants will also be entitled for Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate.

¶53

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

¶54

Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.5,969/- and since at the time of death, the deceased was 35 years old, therefore, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) , the income of deceased is required to be enhanced by 40% towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.8,357/(5969+2388). Thus annual income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the compensation comes to Rs.1,00,284/- (5,969 x 12). Out of this amount, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and after deducting 1/3rd of the annual income, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.66,856/(1,00,284 – 33,428). By applying multiplier of 16 to annual loss of dependency, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.10,69,696/- (66,856 x 16). Besides this, the Appellant No. 1 is entitled for Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium and Appellants No. 2 & 3 are entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each

¶55

8

¶56

towards parental consortium, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Magma General Insurance (Supra) . Further, they are also entitled for Rs. 15,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal.

¶57

Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.12,19,696/- (10,69,696 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000). This 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.

¶58

Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants No. 1 to 3 as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above.

¶59

It is made clear that the appellants/claimants will not be entitled for any interest for the delay period of 837 days in filing of the appeal as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakkamma Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2021) 20 SCC 797.

¶60

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

¶61

Certified copy as per rules.

¶62

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

¶63

Dey

Smt. Savitri Patel v. Santosh Kumar Dandekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Savitri Patel v. Santosh Kumar Dandekar

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

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Dujram Lahre

Smt. Chandani Bai Deewan Vs Raghunandan

Dr. Smt. Rajat Toppo Vs Amardeep Kujur

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Kavita Bai

Tata a. I. G. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Saroj Agrawal

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Kadam Kunwar