Smt. Sumitra Singh Vs Anul Khan

All are residents /o Village Pendrakhi, P.S. And Tahsil Udaipur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ................Claimants, ... Appellants/Claimants

¶14

versus

¶15

1 - Anul Khan S/o Kifayat Khan, Aged About 42 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Village Junadih, Lakhanpur, P.S. And Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh ................Driver Of The Vehicle,

¶16

2 - Rajesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Chandi Ram Agrawal, Occupation Owner Of The Vehicle, R/o Main Road, Lakhanpur, P.S. And Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ................Owner Of The Vehicle,

¶17

3 - Branch Manager, Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Near Ambedkar Chowk, Ambikapur, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh ...............Insurer Of The Vehicle, ... Respondents/Non-applicants

¶18

Of The Vehicle,	.	.. Respondents/Non-applicants
For Appellants :	Ms. Seema Verma Advocates appear Shrivastava,Advocate	and Ms. Shatabdi Bagchi, on behalf of Smt. Uttara .
For Respondents 1 & 2 :	Ms. Priyanka Mehta, Jha and Shri Vivek appear for responden	Advocate. Shri Rakesh Kumar Siddharth Ojha, Advocate also t No.2.
For Respondent 3 :	Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Tiwari, Advocate.	Advocate along with Shri Rakshit

¶19

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)

¶20

2

¶21

Judgment on Board

¶22

10/10/2025

¶23

This is claimants’ appeal seeking enhancement of compensation passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surguja (Ambikapur) (for short, the Claims Tribunal) in M.A.C.T. No.10/2014 vide impugned award dated 23.10.2015. Paries to this appeal are referred herein after as per their description before the Claims Tribunal.

¶24

As per the pleadings of the claim application, the accident occurred on 14.12.2013 at 11.00 am. The deceased by name Bahadur Singh, 30 years, while proceeding on a Pulsar motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-15-Ch3120 along with one Sukhlal, was knocked down to death by the offending Truck bearing registration No.CG-15-/AC-2564 (in short, the offending vehicle) being driven by Non-applicant No.1, owned by Non-applicant No.2 and insured by Non-applicant No.3/insurer, which led to the Claim Petition preferred by the appellants / claimants seeking total compensation of Rs.28,55,000/- stating, inter alia, that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- by running grocery shop, cycle shop and from agricultural related works.

¶25

The claim application was resisted by the Non-applicants, in particular, Nonapplicant No.3/insurer on various grounds including that there is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

¶26

Learned Claims Tribunal framed issues on the basis of pleadings and decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants in Clam Case and awarded the compensation of Rs.5,07,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of award till its realisation while directing the Nonapplicants/respondents to pay the compensation jointly and severally.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the deceased was engaged in running grocery shop, cycle shop and also in doing agricultural works and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month and despite that the learned Claims

¶28

3

¶29

Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- on notional basis, which is extremely on lower side. They further submit that the accident occurred on 14.12.2013 and as per Minimum Wages provisions for unskilled persons, the income would be Rs.5,163/- per month. They also submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount towards loss of future prospects and that the amounts awarded under other conventional heads are also on lower side. They placed reliance on the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 in support of his arguments.

¶30

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 & 2, submit that the offending vehicle was insured at the time of accident with Non-applicant No.3/insurer, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the insurer. They further submit that the claimants have not filed any evidence with regard to the income from respective shops of the deceased, thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- on notional basis.

¶31

Learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company submits that the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company. He further submits that the insurance company has not preferred any appeal against the impugned award. He further submits that wife of the deceased, A.W.1 Sumitra admitted that she has not filed any documentary evidence with respect to the shops and income of the deceased and that there is no land in favour of her husband deceased, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of Rs.3,000/- on notional basis, thus, there is no ground for further enhancement.

¶32

4

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including the evidence adduced by the parties minutely.

¶34

As regards accident, the learned Claims Tribunal has framed issue No.1 and answered it in affirmative by holding that on 14.12.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of the Non-applicant No.1, the deceased died, which is not disputed. It is also not disputed that there was no breach of policy condition.

¶35

So far as income of the deceased is concerned, although A.W.1 Sumitra did not produce any documentary evidence showing income of the deceased, but even if Minimum Wages provisions for unskilled persons during the period between 01.10.2013 to 31.03.2014 are considered, then it can safely be inferred that the deceased’s monthly income would certainly be Rs.5,163/- and considering the facts of the case, nature of job and looking to minimum wages at the prevalent time, it is held that the deceased used to earn Rs.5,163/- per month. The approach of the Claims Tribunal in assessing the monthly income of the deceased on lower side is not just and proper. Further, the learned Claims Tribunal fallen in error in not awarding future prospects and that the amounts awarded under other conventional heads are also on meager side.

¶36

Taking guidance from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), this Court re-computes the compensation in the following manner :-

¶37

Sl.No.	Description	Amount in Rs.
1.	Income of the deceased @ Rs.5,163/- per month	61,956/-
2.	40% of (1) above to be added towards future prospects	24,782/-
3.	Total annual income of the deceased	86,738/-
4.	1/4 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased as made by the Tribunal (Rs.86,738/- – 21,684/-)	65,054/-
5.	Multiplier of 16 as made by the Tribunal to assess	10,40,864/-

¶38

5

¶39

	total loss of dependency.
6.	Funeral expenses	15,000/-
7.	Loss of estate	15,000/-
8.	Loss of spousal consortium to the appellant/claimant No.1, loss of parental consortium to appellants No.2 to 4 and loss of filial consortium to appellant No.5	2,00,000/-
	Total compensation	12,70,864/-
	Award of the learned Tribunal. (-)	5,07,000/-
	Enhanced amount by this Court	7,63,864/-

¶40

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. Hence, the claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.7,63,864/-. The additional amount shall carry interest as made by the Tribunal from the date of passing of award by the Tribunal till its realisation. The enhanced amount with interest shall be deposited by the insurer. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE

¶43

Anjani

Smt. Sumitra Singh v. Anul Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sumitra Singh v. Anul Khan

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

Deepak Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Atwaro

Gulsher Khan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Yogeshwar Sahu

S.k.jain and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Ashok Kumar Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh