Smt. Purnima Yadav Vs Mohan Das

1 - Mohan Das S/o Anand Das R/o Balaji Nagar Khurshipar, Street No. 51, Quarter No. 58, Bhilai, District-Durg, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle Truck No. C.G.-07-C-2436)

¶18

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.07.11 10:40:44 +0530

¶19

2 - Rajkumar Chouhan S/o Ramatapesha Chauhan Aged About 46 Years Sakin-A.C.C. Labor Camp, Near Ram Mandir, Ward No. 13, Shivaji Chowk, Jamul, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle Truck No. C.G.-07-C-2436)

¶20

3 - Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, ThroughBranch No. -2, 2nd Floor, Dubey Complex, Near Basant Takies, Bhilai,

¶21

-2-

¶22

Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ( Insurer Of Vehicle Truck No. C.G.-07-C-2436)

¶23

... Respondent(s)

¶24

For Appellant (s) : Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : None appears though served For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate

¶25

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

¶26

Judgment On Board

¶27

27/06/2025

¶28

With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally.

¶29

This is the claimants’ appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg (CG) vide award dated 3^rd May 2019 passed in Motor Accidents Claim Case No.343 of 2018.

¶30

Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (CG) pleading therein that on 08.01.2018 Gorvadhan Yadav was going towards Bhilai on his motorcycle no. CG 07AC 7984 Hero Honda Deluxe. When he reached near the government school, driver of truck no. CG -07-C 2436 driving the vehicle rashly and negligently dashed Goverdhan from behind due to which Goverdhan lost control and fell along with the motorcycle, he suffered serious head injuries and was immediately sent to District Hospital, Durg. Seeing his critical condition, his family took him to Balaji Hospital Raipur for better treatment where he was

¶31

-3-

¶32

admitted on 09.01.2018, during treatment, Gorvadhan Yadav died on 13.01.2018. At the time of the accident, the deceased was 37-year-old hardworking person who was posted as a contract labourer in Bhilai Steel Plant, and was being paid salary of Rs. 7,744/- per month. The deceased was also doing the business of dairy earning Rs.45,000/- per month by selling milk. Total earnings of deceased was Rs. 52,744/- per month. They prayed for a total compensation amount of Rs.2,02,90,272/- from non-applicants.

¶33

Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 submitted their written statement denying the pleadings made in claim application and further pleaded that no accident was caused by the vehicle truck No. CG- 07-C-2436. Since on the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was insured with nonapplicant No. 3/insurance company, therefore, in such a situation, nonapplicant No. 3 is liable to pay the compensation.

¶34

Non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company in its written statement opposes the averments made in the claim application and stated that as per the conditions of the insurance policy, it is mandatory for the vehicle to be certified as fit and have a permit issued by the Regional Transport Officer. Non-applicant no.1 was driving the vehicle truck No. CG 07C 2436 without valid fitness on the date of the accident. Since the conditions of the insurance policy have been violated, in such a situation, the insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation.

¶35

Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1

¶36

-4-

¶37

rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which Goverdhan suffered grievous injuries and died during his treatment in the hospital. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was found proved, non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company has been exonerated from payment of compensation to claimants and non-applicants No. 1 & 2 (Driver and Owner) were held liable to pay the amount of compensation. Assessing income of the appellant/claimant as Rs.8450/- per month on notional basis, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.13,97,920/ -.

¶38

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of compensation. He contended that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded amount of compensation under the head- ‘loss of future prospects’ and further awarded less compensation under other conventional heads. It is contention of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that learned Tribunal has awarded loss of consortium to claimant No.1/widow only and no amount of consortium is awarded to other claimants who are children and parents of deceased.

¶39

Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance company opposing the submission of learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the facts of the case, amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is just and proper, hence, it does not call for any interference. He contended that amount of compensation awarded under head – ‘loss of consortium’ and ‘funeral expenses’ is much more than what is held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance

¶40

-5-

¶41

Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 . He further submits that learned Tribunal has already awarded compensation under head of ‘loss of love and affection’ to appellants/claimants No. 2 to 7.

¶42

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of Claim Case.

¶43

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has made twofold submission seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. He has not disputed the income as assessed by learned Tribunal and the age of deceased assessed as 37 years, however, his submission is that learned Tribunal ought to have added 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. Award of future prospects has been considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) wherein it was held that legal representatives of deceased will also be entitled for ‘loss of future prospects’ as compensation and further issued guidelines for adding 40% of the assessed income of the deceased less than 40 years of age and not in permanent employment. In the case at hand, deceased on the date of accident was aged about 37 years and therefore there shall be addition of 40% of the assessed income of the deceased. It is ordered accordingly.

¶44

So far as the second submission made by learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of compensation under other conventional heads is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) specified other

¶45

-6-

¶46

heads as ‘loss of consortium’, ‘funeral expenses’, ‘loss of estate’ and also quantified the amount on each head. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded consolidated amount of Rs.50,000/- under the head – ‘spousal consortium, loss of estate’, Rs.25,000/- under the head – ‘love and affection’ and Rs.25,000/- under the head- ‘funeral expenses’. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 has specified types of consortium and it was held that there are three types of consortium i.e. ‘loss of spousal consortium to wife/husband, ‘loss of parental consortium’ to children and loss of ‘filial consortium’ to parents of the deceased. Hence, appellant/claimant No. 1/wife of the deceased is entitled for loss of spousal consortium of Rs.40,000/-; appellants/claimants No. 2 to 5 being children of deceased are entitled for loss of ‘parental consortium’ of Rs.40,000/- each and appellants/claimants No. 6 & 7 being parents of deceased are entitled for loss of filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly.

¶47

For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:-

¶48

S. N.	Heads	Compensation
1.	(A) Loss of Income/dependency 8450 x 12 =101400 (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 40% (101400 x 40 % =40560 ) 101400 + 40560 = 1,41,960	Rs. 18,17,088
	(C) Deduction of 1/5 towards personal and living expenses ( 1,41,960 x 1/5 =28392 )

¶49

-7-

¶50

	1,41,960 - 28392 = 113568 (D) Multiplier of 16 113568 x 16 = 18,17,088
2.	Funeral Expenses	: (+) Rs. 15,000
3.	Loss of Estate	: (+) Rs. 15,000
4.	Loss of spousal consortium to appellant/claimant No.1/wife	: (+) Rs. 40,000
5.	Loss of Parental Consortium of Rs.40,000/- each to appellant/ claimants No. 2 to 5	: (+) Rs. 1,60,000
6.	Loss of Filial Consortium of Rs.40,000/- each to appellants/ claimants No. 6 & 7	: (+) Rs. 80,000
	Total compensation	: Rs. 21,27,088

¶51

Now the appellants/claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs .21,27,088 /- instead of Rs.13,97,920/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

¶52

Aforementioned total amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.

¶53

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

¶54

Sd/- Sd/- -

¶55

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶56

Praveen

Smt. Purnima Yadav v. Mohan Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Purnima Yadav v. Mohan Das

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

Branch Manager Vs Smt. Preeti Singh

Jovakim Tirkey Vs Dr. Laxmi Narayan Patel

Akhilendra Pratap Singh Vs Monu Chouhan

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Rannu Tripathi

Ajay Kumar Singh Vs Prateek Choubey

Mitesh Soni Vs Sher Singh Khela