Smt. Hemlata Verma Vs Rameshwar Prasad Navrange

¶1

1

NIRMALA RAO

2025:CGHC:57521

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 1355 of 2024

¶7

1 - Smt. Hemlata Verma W/o Late Dakeshwar Verma, Aged About 33 Years R/o House No. 4/659, Station Road, Lodhi Para, Ward No.20, Near Lodhi Vidya Mandir, Raipur Ganj, Raipur (C.G.) ----(Claimants)

¶8

2 - Minor- Shubham Verma S/o Late Dakeshwar Verma, Aged About 10 Years Through Next Kin Mother Hemlata Verma, R/o House No. 4/659, Station Road, Lodhi Para, Ward No.20, Near Lodhi Vidya Mandir, Raipur Ganj, Raipur (C.G.) ---(Claimants)

¶9

3 - Minor- Yash Verma S/o Late Dakeshwar Varma, Aged About 7 Years Through Next Kin Mother Hemlata Verma, R/o House No. 4/659, Station Road, Lodhi Para, Ward No.20, Near Lodhi Vidya Mandir, Raipur Ganj, Raipur (C.G.) ----(Claimants)

¶10

... Petitioner(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - Rameshwar Prasad Navrange S/o Shri Ubaran Das Navrange, Aged About 36 Years At- Guru Ghasidas Nagar, Civil Lines, Bilaspur (C.G.) -----(Driver)

¶13

2 - M/s Bhavesh Traders, Proprietor- Deepak Harjpal, At R-10, House No. 380, Raipur Road, Nagar Panchayat, Bodri, Chakarbhata, Bilaspur (C.G.) ----(Owner)

¶14

3 - Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Manager, Branch Office, At 205, Second Floor, M.M. Silver Plaza, In Front Of Udyog Bhavan, Mahaveer Nagar, Ring Road No.1, Raipur (C.G.)

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Appellants : Shri Vinay Nagdev, Advocate.

¶17

2

¶18

For Respondent No.2	: Ms. Durga Mehar, Advocate holding the
	brief of Shri H.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate.
For Respondent No.3	: None though served.

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

26.11.2025

¶22

The appellants/ claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 23.11.2023, passed in Claim Case No.853 of 2022 by the learned Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur whereby the learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs.14,75,841/- and directed the Insurance Company to make payment with interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of Dakeshwar Verma.

¶23

The facts, in brief, are that on 20.2.2022 at about 1:45 pm, deceased Dakeshwar Verma was going alongwith his relatives to Angar Moti Mata Mandir situated in Dhamtari in a Jeep bearing registration No.C.G.-08-ZD-0548. Just before Satpara petrol pump on National Highway No.30, the driver of the offending Maruti Brezza bearing registration No.C.G. 10 BF 5566 while driving rashly and negligently, dashed the Jeep, as a result of which the deceased and other copassengers sustained grievous injuries. The deceased sustained injuries over his head, face and shoulder and during the course of treatment, succumbed to death. A claim case was filed by widow and two minor children of the deceased wherein they pleaded that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 39 years and had been working as a Video mixer and photo album designer at Shubham

¶24

3

¶25

Studio situated at Devendra Nagar, Raipur since last 12 years and drawing a salary of Rs.27,000/- per month. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs.73,72,163/-.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellants would argue that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased Rs.7,800/- per month, which is at lower side. He would submit that the claimants examined the owner of the shop where the deceased was working to prove the income part. He would submit that the salary slip Ex.P/34 was proved by its author AW-3. He would contend that claimant No.1 also stated that her husband was earning Rs.27,000/- per month but the learned Tribunal considered the income of the deceased Rs.10,000/- only. He would further contend that the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of consortium to the children of the deceased. He would pray to enhance the compensation.

¶27

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellants. She would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation and they could not prove the income of the deceased. She would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶28

Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the Insurance Company.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection.

¶30

The claimants categorically pleaded that the deceased was working as a Video mixer and photo album designer at Shubham Studio situated at Devendra Nagar, Raipur. They further pleaded that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.27,000/-. The claimants examined Shivnarayan

¶31

4

¶32

alias Sheshnarayan Chandel (AW-3), the employer of the deceased, to prove his income. This witness has stated that (Ex.P/34) the salary certificate was issued by him on 12.7.2022, and further affirmed that the deceased was earning Rs.27,000/- per month. In crossexamination, the witness remained consistent. Learned Tribunal has not assigned sufficient reasons to discard such piece of evidence. Learned Tribunal has held that the claimants failed to submit any certificate with regard to profession of the deceased. The finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal in this regard appears to be erroneous. The deceased was maintaining a family of four persons from his income, and his employer had issued and proved the salary certificate. Therefore, in my opinion, the income of the deceased was Rs.27,000/- per month at the time of the accident and the learned Tribunal should have taken that figure while computing the income of the deceased. Learned Tribunal further committed an error by not granting compensation for loss of consortium to claimants No.2 & 3.

¶33

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the compensation requires recomputation and same is revisited herein below:

¶34

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Income	Rs.7,800 x 12 = Rs. 93,600/-	Rs. 27,000 x 12 = Rs. 3,24,000/-
2.	Future Prospect	40% - 37,440/- (93,600 + 37,440 = 1,31,040/-)	40% - 1,29,600/- (3,24,000 + 1,29,600 = 4,53,600/-)
3.	Deduction	(-) 1/3rd (43,680/-) (1,31,040 – 43,680 = 87,360/-	(-) 1/3rd (1,51,200/-) (Rs.4,53,600-1,51,200) = Rs. 3,02,400/-
4.	Multiplier	(x) 15 = Rs. (87,360 x 15 = 13,10,400/-)	(x) 15 = Rs. (3,02,400 x 15 = 45,36,000/-)

¶35

5

¶36

5.	Loss of Estate	Rs. 18,000/-	Rs. 18,000/-
6.	Funeral expenses	Rs. 18,000/-	Rs. 18,000/-
7.	Loss of Consortium	Rs. 48,000/-	Rs. 48,000 + (44,000 x 2 = 88,000/-) = 1,36,000/-
8.	Medical Expenses	Rs.81,441/-	Rs.81,441/-
	TOTAL	Rs. 14,75,841/-	Rs. 47,89,441/-

¶37

In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.14,75,841/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.47,89,441/- . Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.14,75,841/- , the appellant/claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.33,13,600/- . The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶38

Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶41

Nimmi

Smt. Hemlata Verma v. Rameshwar Prasad Navrange

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Hemlata Verma v. Rameshwar Prasad Navrange

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Bharti Sahu

Branch Manager, New India Insurance Company Limited Vs Leelavati

Jageshwari Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vishwanath Singh (Died through Lrs) Vs Laxmi Kunwar (Died) through Lrs

Kumari Chandrasheela @ Jayshree Sethiya Vs Manoj Kumar Soni

Bharat Purle Vs Kamal Prasad Patle