Smt. Lalkumari Devi Vs Mahendra Singh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:16949

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 126 of 2020

¶6

1 - Smt. Lalkumari Devi W/o Late Ram Swarath Aged About 47 Years Cast Of Kahar R/o Village Parihara Tahsil And P.S. Garhwa (Jharkhand)............Claiment, District : Garhwa *, Jharkhand

¶7

2 - Ashish Kumar S/o Late Ram Swarath Aged About 28 Years Cast Of Kahar R/o Village Parihara Tahsil And P.S. Garhwa (Jharkhand)............Claiment, District : Garhwa *, Jharkhand

¶8

3 - Savita Kumari D/o Late Ram Swarath Aged About 22 Years Cast Of Kahar R/o Village Parihara Tahsil And P.S. Garhwa (Jharkhand)............Claiment, District : Garhwa *, Jharkhand

¶9

4 - Sant Kumar S/o Late Ram Swarath Aged About 20 Years Cast Of Kahar R/o Village Parihara Tahsil And P.S. Garhwa (Jharkhand)............Claiment, District : Garhwa *, Jharkhand

¶10

5 - Rambigan Ram S/o Late Kishun Ram Aged About 87 Years But Wrongly Mention In The Order As (Ram Swarath) Cast Of Kahar R/o Village Parihara Tahsil And P.S. Garhwa (Jharkhand)............Claiment, District : Garhwa *, Jharkhand

¶11

... Appellants

¶12

Versus

¶13

1 - Mahendra Singh S/o Mukhdev Singh Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Lavawar P.S. Tandawa District Orangabad (Bihar)..............Driver, District : Aurangabad, Bihar

¶14

2 - Proprietor M/s Tanushri Lagistik Pvt. Ltd Transporter Building Office Room No. 15 Shri Raipur Cement Plant Kapradih P.S. And Tahsil Simga District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh...............Owner, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶15

SHUBHAM 3 - United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager United India DEY

¶16

Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY

¶17

2

¶18

Insurance Company Ltd. 1st Floor Shri Digamber Jain Dharamshala Building M.I Road Jaipur District Jaipur (Rajsthan) Through Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd. Brahm Road Near Kumkum Hotal Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh.............Insurer, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

For Appellants : Ms. Aakancha Vishwakarma, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate

¶21

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

¶22

Order On Board

¶23

11/04/2025

¶24

This appeal is filed by appellants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded vide award dated 23.03.2019 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) in M.A.C. No. 39/2016.

¶25

Facts of the case in brief are that, on 17.02.2016, Ramswarth Ram along with his brother Bharat Ram was going towards Ambikapur on his motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 15 D 7214, when they reached near Semarsot Jungle at Ambikapur-Ramanujganj road, at that time, one trailer bearing registration no. CG 22 AC 6401 which was being driven by Respondent No. 1 dashed motorcycle of Ramswarth Ram and caused accident. In said accident, Ramswarth Ram and Bharat Ram sustained grievous injuries, Ramswarth Ram (since dead) succumbed to injuries on the spot. Accident was reported in concerned police station based on which F.I.R. was registered against Respondent No.1 under Crime No. 11/2016 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶26

Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded meager sum as amount of compensation. She submits that deceased Ramswarth Ram was working as Welder in the Northern

¶27

3

¶28

Coalfields Limited and was earning Rs.67,818/- per month, which is evident from statement of AW-3. However, the Claims Tribunal has erroneously assessed monthly income of deceased at Rs.35,346/- only. Likewise, the amount added towards future prospects is also on lower side. She further submits that looking to number of dependent family members, the Claims Tribunal ought to have deducted one-fourth in place of one-third as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121. She further submits that each of the claimants is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head of consortium i.e. spousal, parental and filial, but the Claims Tribunal has only awarded compensation under the head of loss of consortium to appellant No.1 only. She further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erroneously awarded the loss of love and affection and loss of estate consolidatory to the tune of Rs. 35,000/- which is not in the tune of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). Hence, he prays for enhancement of compensation suitably.

¶29

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 opposes the submission made by the counsel for appellants and would submit that the amount of compensation awarded in the facts and circumstances of the case is just and proper which does not call for any interference.

¶30

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

¶31

As regards income of deceased, the Claims Tribunal based on salary slip (Ex.P-7) which shows that basic pay of deceased was Rs.35606/and he was getting dearness allowance of Rs.14489/-, assessed

¶32

4

¶33

income of deceased at Rs.50495/- and after deducting income tax @ 30%, assessed the monthly income of deceased at Rs.35346/-. Deceased was working as Welder in Coalfields (Northern Coalfields). Claimants have produced the salary slip of deceased as Ex. P/7 proved by Sudhir Kumar, Assistant Manager (Personnel) (A.W.3) of Northern Coalfields, Duddhichua. In salary slip, gross salary is shows as Rs. 85,895/-, total deduction is shown as Rs. 18,077.5/- (including Rs. 5000/- as income tax). Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the salary of the deceased as Rs.35,346/- after deducting the amount towards the income tax @ 30% flat. Claims tribunal ought to have considered the deduction made in salary slip Ex. P/7. Even if deduction towards income tax is to be made, that is to be deducted on applicable slab basis. In salary slip (Ex. P/7), deduction towards income tax is Rs. 5000/- p.m.

¶34

As per salary slip (Ex. P/7), net salary of Rs.67,818/- was drawn by the deceased. Perusal of salary slip reflects that the deceased was contributing a sum of Rs.7054/- towards provident fund, Rs.760/towards family pension and Rs.3729/- towards life insurance. These amount are though shown under the head of deduction, however, for the purpose of calculation of compensation, the same is to be added as the income of the deceased. Further, salary of deceased includes basic pay, HRA and various other allowances including overtime allowance of Rs.5,000/-, accommodation allowance of Rs.8/-, electricity allowance of Rs.355/-. Overtime allowance is not a regular income, it is provided only when one works overtime and therefore, overtime allowance is to be deducted from gross salary as mentioned in Ex. P/7, so as to calculate compensation towards loss of depndency. Further,

¶35

5

¶36

accommodation allowance and electricity allowance were attached to the service of the deceased and after his death, his legal heirs were not entitled for these allowances, therefore, the same are also required to be deducted from salary of deceased. It can be seen from salary slip that the employer has deducted Rs.5000/- towards income tax from the salary of the deceased and therefore, this amount is to be excluded from the income of deceased. Thus, by adding the amounts deducted towards PF, Family Pension and Life Insurance and after deducting the amount paid to deceased under the head of ‘overtime allowance, accommodation allowance, electricity allowance’ as also income tax payable by deceased, monthly income of deceased comes out to Rs.68,998/-. Accordingly, this Court assesses the monthly income of deceased as Rs.68,998/- for the purpose of computing loss of dependency.

¶37

On the date of accident, deceased was 53 years of age, as mentioned in postmortem report, and was in permanent job. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, where the victim of a road accident was in the age group of 50 to 60 years and was in a permanent job, 15% is to be added to his assessed income towards future prospects. Thus, the Claims Tribunal has rightly added 15% towards future prospects.

¶38

So far as deduction towards personal expenses of deceased is concerned, as per decision of Sarla Verma’s case, where total number of dependents are five, 1/4th of the total income is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. In case at hand, there are total five claimants, who are appellants before this

¶39

6

¶40

Court, hence, one-fourth ought to have been deducted by the Claims Tribunal towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is ordered accordingly.

¶41

Further submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding Rs. 35,000/- towards loss of love and affection and loss of estate to the Appellants as also awarding Rs. 50,000/- to the Appellant No. 1 towards loss of spousal consortium and not awarding any amount of compensation towards the loss of consortium to Appellants No. 2 to 5. Loss of consortium to children and parents of the deceased was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram , reported in (2018) 8 SCC wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that apart from the loss of dependency, the claimants/legal representatives are entitled for loss of consortium, loss of spousal consortium to wife/husband, loss of parental consortium to children and loss of filial consortium to parents of Rs. 40,000/- to each of them.

¶42

The Claims Tribunal was also not justified in awarding compensation towards loss of love and affection. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076 , the Apex Court observed that Loss of Consortium subsumes Loss of Love and Affection. Therefore, the compensation need not be granted separately for Loss of Love and Affection and Loss of Consortium.

¶43

Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal under the head loss of consortium to wife, consolidated sum for loss of love and affection and loss of estate requires to be modified.

¶44

7

¶45

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

¶46

Accordingly, the income of deceased is taken as Rs. 68,998/- p.m. after deducting income tax and other heads, and after adding 15% towards future prospects, monthly income of deceased comes to Rs. 79,348/-. Annual income comes to Rs.9,52,176/- (79,348x12) After deducting one-fourth towards personal expenses of deceased, total amount of dependency comes to Rs.7,14,132/- (9,52,176 – 2,38,044). On applying multiplier of 11, total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 78,55,452/- (7,14,132 x 11). Besides, this Appellant No.1 is entitled for Rs.40,000/- for spousal consortium, Appellant Nos. 2 to 4 are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each for parental consortium and Appellant No.5 is entitled for Rs.40,000/- for filial consortium. Apart from this, appellants are also entitled for Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.15000/- for funeral expenses. Now, the appellants will be entitled for total compensation of Rs. 80,85,452/- (78,55,452 + 40000 + 40000 + 40000 + 40000 + 40000 + 15000+15000). This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶47

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

¶48

In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakkamma Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2021) 20 SCC 797 , it is directed that the appellant will not be entitled for the

¶49

8

¶50

interest on the additional amount of compensation for the delayed period, which is 197 days.

¶51

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

¶52

Certified copy as per rules.

¶53

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

¶54

Dey

Smt. Lalkumari Devi v. Mahendra Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Lalkumari Devi v. Mahendra Singh

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

Navkeet Nirala Vs Navdeep Nirala

Smt. Sunita Lakda Vs Uday Chand

Smt. Tomin Sahu Vs Arun Baghel

Smt. Naina Ambade Vs Devendra Kumar Ambade

Smt. Reeta Devi Vs Rajendra Kumar

Kapil Kumar Gendle Vs State of Chhattisgarh