Revaram Sonkar Vs Bhagbali Patre

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:30026

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 157 of 2019

¶6

Revaram Sonkar S/o Kheduram Sonkar Aged About 42 Years.

¶7

Smt. Kausililya Bai W/o Revaram Aged About 42 Years both R/o Vivekanand Ward Balani Chowk Mungeli Police Station Mungeli District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Appellants-claimants

¶9

versus

¶10

Bhagbali Patre S/o Shri Motiram Patre Aged About 35 Years (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle,bearing Reg,no. Cg 10/zd/5309) R/o Village Mudiya Para, Police Station And Tahsil Bolda, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Ravilal Bhaskar S/o Shri Maniklal Bhaskar Aged About 25 Years (Driver of the offending vehicle bearing Reg, No. CG 10/ZD/5309) R/o Village Mudiya Para, Police Station And Tahsil Bolda District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶12

Branch manger IFFCO tokiyo general insurance company ltd registered office IFFCO Sadan ,C.I. District Center Saket New Delhi 110017 Through Branch Office ,first Floor Galaxy Heights Near ICICI Bank Vyapar Vihar Sanjay Apartments Bilaspur Civil And Rev. Distirct Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495001,

¶13

Ravinarayan Namdev S/o Itwari Namdev R/o Raja Talab Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.492001.

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

2

¶16

For Appellants : None For Respondent No.3 : Mr.Animesh Pathak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das,Advocate

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board

¶18

2/7/2025

¶19

This miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) has been preferred on behalf of appellants-claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli (CG) (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 30.7.2018 in Claim Case No.30/2017.

¶20

The case is listed for final hearing and is called out thrice from 30.6.2025 till today, but on each occasion there was no representation on behalf of the appellants. Thus, considering that this is claimants’ appeal for enhancement of compensation, I deem it proper to dispose of the same considering the grounds raised by appellants in memo of appeal.

¶21

Perused the memo of appeal filed by appellants as also record of claim case including impugned award.

¶22

Perusal of grounds urged in memo of appeal would show that appellants-claimants have raised the grounds, inter alia, that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased at

¶23

3

¶24

Rs.4,500/- per month only and in not assessing income of the deceased as pleaded and stated by appellants i.e. Rs.20,000/per month from the work of painting and putty. It is also claim of appellants that amount of compensation awarded under other conventional heads is on lower side. Hence, it is prayed that the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably.

¶25

Perusal of impugned award would reveal that the Claims Tribunal allowed in part application of claimants for grant of compensation, awarded compensation of Rs.7,50.400/- by assessing income of deceased as Rs.4,500/- on notional basis, adding 40% of income towards loss of future prospects, deducting one-half towards personal expenses of deceased, applying multiplier of 18 and allowing Rs.15,000/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium. The Claims Tribunal has fastened liability upon the non-applicants, jointly and severally, on the ground that there was no breach of any condition of insurance.

¶26

So far as ground raised in memo of appeal as to assessment of income of deceased is concerned, from the contents of claim application and evidence of applicants, it can be seen that the applicants have stated that at the time of accident, deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by doing work of painting and putty. In this regard, the claimants have examined two witnesses i.e. appellant No.1-Revaram Sonkar as AW-1 and

¶27

4

¶28

one Chandrakunwar Sahu as AW-2, who appears to be an independent witness as he is not related with the deceased or claimants. AW-2 in his statement has stated that deceased was engaged in the work of putty and painting of old and new buildings and earing Rs.20,000/- per month. However, the claimants have not produced any admissible documentary evidence to show income of the deceased as Rs.20,000/- per month. In absence of any admissible piece of documentary evidence, oral evidence of claimants’ witness with regard to income of deceased as Rs.20,000/- cannot be accepted. Hence, the income of deceased is to be assessed on notional basis. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has rightly considered and decided to assess income of deceased on notional basis. However, the Claims Tribunal fell into error in assessing income of deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month only treating the deceased to be an unskilled labourer. Finding of the Claims Tribunal that deceased on the date of accident was working as unskilled labourer is contrary to the evidence available on record. It cannot be expected from the claimants to produce any document to prove nature of work in which deceased was engaged prior to his death, more particularly when he was doing the work of painting and putty of buildings. AW-2, an independent witness, has stated that deceased on the date of accident was engaged in the work of putty and painting, the

¶29

5

¶30

nature of occupation of deceased can be considered to be one of skilled labourer. Claimants have not proved income of deceased by placing any cogent and admissible piece of evidence and in absence thereof, the Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed the income keeping in mind the minimum wage rate fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the period during which accident occurred. Accident occurred on 18.12.2016 and deceased was resident of District Mungeli. On the date of accident, wage rate of a skilled labourer of District Mungeli, which is a 'C' Grade city, prescribed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the period from 1.10.2016 to 31.3.2016 was Rs.6,648/- per month. Thus, I find it appropriate to fix monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,648/- in place of Rs.4,500/- as assessed by the Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly.

¶31

The Claims Tribunal has rightly made addition of 40% towards loss of future prospects as deceased was below 40 years of age i.e. 21 years; one-half deduction towards personal and living expenses of deceased, who was bachelor, and applied multiplier of 18. Award of Rs.15,000/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses is also correct. But, the Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium, which in the opinion of this Court is not in consonance with the decision

¶32

6

¶33

of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, wherein it was held that the parents of the victim who died in a road accident are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium. Hence, it is ordered that appellant are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each for loss of filial consortium.

¶34

In view of the above, the compensation payable to appellantsclaimants requires to be recalculated.

¶35

Accordingly, the income of deceased is taken as Rs.6,648/and after adding 40% towards future prospects, monthly income comes to Rs.9,307/- and annual income comes to Rs.1,11,684/- Out of this, one-half is to be deducted towards personal expenses of deceased, who was bachelor, and after deducting one-half, annual dependency would come to Rs.55,842/-. Applying multiplier of 18, as applied by Claims Tribunal, the loss of dependency would be Rs.10,05,156/-. Besides this, appellants being parents of the deceased are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium respectively. In addition to aforesaid amount, appellants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.11,15,156/- (10,05,156 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 15,000+ 15,000). This amount shall carry interest @

¶36

7

¶37

7.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization . Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount disbursed to appellants pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted.

¶38

10.In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned

¶39

award stands modified to the extent indicated above.

¶40

Digitally SYED signed ROSHAN by SYED ZAMIR ROSHAN ALI ZAMIR ALI

¶41

Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶42

roshan/

Revaram Sonkar v. Bhagbali Patre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Revaram Sonkar v. Bhagbali Patre

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

Icici Lumbard General Insurance Company Limited Vs Pramod Yadav

Smt. Shyamta Bai Sonwani Vs Santosh Kumar

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Abdul Hafiz

Smt. Aam Bai Vs Atma Ram Sahu

Branch Manager, Vs Batni

Jaiky Jhariya Vs Siddhu @ Sadaram Nishad