Smt. Hemeshwari Bai Chandrakar Vs Tejendra Kumar Sahu

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:53781

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 1557 of 2019

¶6

Reserved on : 22.07.2025

¶7

Delivered on : 04.11.2025

¶8

1. Smt. Hemeshwari Bai Chandrakar W/o Late Anand Chandrakar Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Kurud, Police Station And Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2. Ku. Harshita Chandrakar D/o Late Anand Chandrakar Aged About 8 Years Minor On Behalf Of Through Her Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Hemeshwai Chandrakar Appellant No. 1) R/o Ward No. 1, Kurud, Police Station And Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶10

3. Santlal Chandrakar S/o Late Johan Lal Chandrakar Aged About 65 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Kurud, Police Station And Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Appellants

¶12

versus

¶13

1. Tejendra Kumar Sahu S/o Mangtu Ram Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Village - Kurra, Post - Bagoud, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle Maruti Van Bearing Registration No. Cg 04/kq/5156)., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶14

2. Mangturam Sahu S/o Mannulal Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Village - Kurra, Post - Bagoud, Police Station - Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Registered Owner Of Vehicle Maruti Van Bearing Registration No. Cg 04/kq/5156)., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶15

3. The New India Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, The Branch Office No. 1, Jail Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle Maruti Van Bearing Registration No. Cg 04/kq/5156)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH YADAV YADAV Date: 2025.11.04 15:01:19 +0530

¶18

2

¶19

For Appellants : Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas C.A.V. JUDGMENT

¶21

This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation as awarded by the 4^th Additional Claim Tribunal, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) to learned 1^st Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 296/2017 in case of Smt. Hemeshwari Chandrakar & Others Vs. Tejendra Kumar Sahu & Others.

¶22

The brief facts as reflected from the record of that on 25.11.2016 the deceased Anand Kumar Chandrakar was going on his motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG-05-V-5485 towards Bolsonda Mahasamund. At about 10:00 AM Near the Uparwara Chowk Rakhi the offending vehicle Maruti Van bearing Registration No. CG-04-KQ-5156 dashed the motorcycle by driving recklessly and negligently causing multiple severe injuries which has caused death to the driver of the motorcycle namely Anand Kumar Chandrakar who was aged about 30 years on 26.11.2016 which has necessitated the claimant/appellant to file claim application registered as Claim case No. 296/2017 under Section 166 of the Motor vehicle Act before the claims Tribunal Raipur claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 41,50,000/-.

¶23

The Insurance Company filed written statement denying the fact of the accident and also contended that the claimant have claimed exaggerated amount of compensation and also denied that the

¶24

3

¶25

claimants are dependent on the earning of the deceased. The insurance company has also contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was no not having valid license to drive the vehicle. The vehicle was driven in violation of Insurance Policy and there is non-joinder of necessary party as the claimants have not arrayed the insurance company of motor cycle which was driven recklessly and negligently, as such, they are not entitled to indemnify the owner of the vehicle, as such prayed for dismissal of the applications.

¶26

The claimant examined herself as PW-1, Rajkumar Chandrakar (PW-2) and Jitendra Chandrakar (PW-3) and exhibited the documents: Charge-sheet (Exhibit P/1 to P/4) and Salary Certificate (Exhibit P/5). The Insurance Company has not examined any witness and the learned Claims Tribunal vide its award dated 25.11.2017 has partly allowed the application and ordered for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 17,78,000/- in favour of the claimants with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of the application till the amount is paid to the claimants. Hence this appeal by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation awarded to the claimants.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the claimants have pleaded and proved that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month and certificate to this effect has also been placed on record, as such, the learned Claims Tribunal has committed illegality in not holding that monthly salary of the deceased was Rs. 15,000/-. He would further submit that the Claims Tribunal has erred in granting less loss of consortium

¶28

4

¶29

amount of Rs. 40,000/- and also committed illegality in not granting loss of estate which should have been assessed to Rs. 2,00,000/-. He would further submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has counted illegally compensation in conventional heads in lower side, thus, he would pray for enhancement of the compensation amount.

¶30

On the other hand learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper and would pray for dismissal of the appeal.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶32

From the award it is quite vivid that the learned Claims Tribunal has passed the award treating the annual income of the deceased Rs. 72,000/- per annum and future prospect has been taken as 40% and the multiplier of 15 has been used by the learned Claims Tribunal as the date of deceased 39 years. The learned Claims Tribunal for funeral expenses granted the amount of Rs. 15,000/-, for loss of estate has awarded Rs. 15,000 and for loss of consortium has awarded Rs. 40,000/-. The award so far as treating the annual income of the deceased as 72,000/- cannot be found faulty as the claimants have not placed on record sufficient material on record to prove the monthly income of deceased as Rs. 15,000/-. The record of the case would further demonstrate that neither the subscriber of the document Exhibit P/2 nor any relevant document to substantiate the contents of the certificate has been produced, therefore, the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal that deceased was earning Rs. 72,000/- per annum cannot be held to

¶33

5

¶34

be illegal of contrary to the evidence and material on record, as such the finding that the deceased earning Rs. 72,000/- per annum is affirmed.

¶35

The award of the learned Claims Tribunal that future aspect treating increase in the income to the extent of 40% is in accordance with law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not liable to be interfered by this Court. Further award of the learned trial Court of granting Rs. 15,000/- funeral expenses also legal justified and in accordance with law, as such it does not warrant interference by this Court. So far use of multiplier in 2015 is also in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 .

¶36

So far as loss of estate and loss of consortium is concerned, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded the amount to the tune of Rs. Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- which is not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has examined the issue regarding grant of compensation in conventional heads and in paragraph 52 has held as under:

¶37

“52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] . It has granted Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] refers to Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2

¶38

6

¶39

SCC (L&S) 167] , it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be factcentric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.”

¶40

Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram

¶41

and Others reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court addressed the issue of consortium and stated as follows:

¶42

“21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses “spousal consortium”, “parental consortium”, and “filial consortium”. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse: [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54].

¶43

21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband- wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of

¶44

7

¶45

“company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation”. [Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).]

¶46

21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training”.

¶47

21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit. .....................

¶48

..................... …………………………………………………… 24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under “loss of consortium” as laid down in Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]. In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium.”

¶49

From the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) it is evident that the learned Claims Tribunal has not granted filial consortium to father appellant No. 3 and parental consortium to the daughter appellant No. 2, as such they are entitled to get additional award of Rs. 40,000/- each which comes to Rs. 80,000/- and for loss of estate the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- which is in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited (Supra) .

¶50

Considering the above stated legal position, the father is entitled to filial consortium and daughter of the deceased is entitled to get Rs. 40,000/- as parental consortium with interest of 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment. Thus, the Insurance

¶51

8

¶52

Company is liable to pay Rs. 80,000/- with interest of 7.5% in addition to the award granted by the learned Claims Tribunal.

¶53

The appeal is allowed in part by modifying the award as stated above.

¶54

Sd/(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶55

Manish

Smt. Hemeshwari Bai Chandrakar v. Tejendra Kumar Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Hemeshwari Bai Chandrakar v. Tejendra Kumar Sahu

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

Santosh Kumar Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nirmal Pradhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shivchandra Saha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Uma Bai Vs Shri Bharosa Ram Thakur

Deepak Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anuj Ram Kurre Vs State of Chhattisgarh