Smt. Indubai Vaishnav Vs Modhram Mahant

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI

¶3

2025:CGHC:54496

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 168 of 2018

¶7

1 - Smt. Indubai Vaishnav Wd/o Late Gopaldas Bairagi Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Birra, Outpost Jobi, Police Station Kharsiya, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) (Claimant), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶8

2 - Virendra Kumar Vaishnav S/o Late Gopaldas Vaishnav Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Birra, Outpost Jobi, Police Station Kharsiya, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) (Claimant), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶9

3 - Mahendra Kumar Bairagi S/o Late Gopaldas Bairagi Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Birra, Outpost Jobi, Police Station Kharsiya, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) (Claimant), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶10

4 - Kusumlata D/o Late Gopaldas Bairagi Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Birra, Outpost Jobi, Police Station Kharsiya, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) (Claimant), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶11

5 - Janki Bai (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 03-11-2025.

¶12

... Appellants

¶13

versus

¶14

1 - Modhram Mahant S/o Suklal Mahant Aged About 45 Years R/o Kafarmar, P.O. Jatri, Police Station Jobi, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) (Driver Of Pickup Bearing Registration No. Cg-13-L-0246), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶15

2 - Gendlal Patel S/o Nanduram Patel R/o Village Jobi, Outpost And Tahsil Kharsiay District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) (Owner Of Pickup Bearing Registration No. Cg-13-L0246), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶16

3 - Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company, 5th Floor National Corporate Park In Front Of Dhuppad Petrol Pump, G.E. Road, Near Ayurved College, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (Insurer Of Pickup Bearing Registration No. Cg-13-L0246), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶17

... Respondent(s)

¶18

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶19

For Appellant	: Ms. Gunjam Taram, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate
For Resp. No. 1 and 2	: Mr. F. S. Khare, Advocate
For Resp. No. 3	: Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate

¶20

2

¶21

(Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge)

¶22

Order on Board

¶23

03/11/2025

¶24

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 12.07.2017 passed by the learned First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, DistrictRaigarh (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 17/2016 whereby an amount of Rs. 6,85,500/- with interest @ 8% per annum has been awarded in the favour of the claimants of the deceased for their irreparable loss.

¶25

Brief facts of the case, giving rise to the present claim petition, are that on 28.08.2014, deceased Gopal Das Bairagi was returning to his residence from his clinic after completion of his professional duties. At about the same time, when he reached near the Madanpur Block Office Main Road, the respondent No. 1, while driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, lost control and violently dashed against the motorcycle being driven by the deceased. Due to the forceful impact of the collision, Gopal Das Bairagi sustained grievous multiple injuries on various parts of his body and succumbed to the same on the spot. The accident resulted in his untimely and tragic demise. On account of the sudden death of Gopal Das Bairagi, the legal representatives and dependents of the deceased (hereinafter referred to as the claimants) preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the learned Motor Accident

¶26

3

¶27

Claims Tribunal. In their claim application, the claimants contended that the deceased was an Ayurvedic doctor by profession and was engaged in private medical practice, earning an income of approximately Rs. 30,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that due to the untimely death of the deceased, the family has suffered irreparable loss, both financial and emotional. Accordingly, the claimants sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 73,05,000/- on various heads including loss of dependency, loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and other consequential losses.

¶28

Upon notice, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed their written statement, denying the allegations of rash and negligent driving. It was specifically pleaded that respondent No. 1 was duly licensed to drive the vehicle and that the vehicle in question was being driven strictly in accordance with law and the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was further submitted that the vehicle was validly insured with respondent No. 3, and hence, in the event any liability was found, the same was required to be indemnified by the insurer. Respondent No. 3, the Insurance Company, also filed its written statement wherein it was contended that the insured vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The insurer specifically took the defence that since there was a breach of the policy conditions at the time of the accident, it was not liable to indemnify the insured or to satisfy the award that may be passed

¶29

4

¶30

by the learned Tribunal. The insurer, therefore, sought exoneration from any liability to pay compensation to the claimants.

¶31

On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed as many as five issues for adjudication. After due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Tribunal recorded findings on all the issues in favour of the claimants, holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 and that the claimants were entitled to compensation. However, despite such findings, the learned Tribunal proceeded to award a sum of compensation which, according to the claimants, is inadequate, meagre, and not commensurate with the loss actually suffered by them. The claimants, therefore, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the awarded amount in the interest of justice.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the award dated 12.07.2017 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 17/2016 is bad both in law and on facts. The impugned judgment and award suffer from serious infirmities in appreciation of evidence, misapplication of settled principles of law governing assessment of compensation, and consequently, the amount awarded is grossly inadequate and unjust, thereby

¶33

5

¶34

warranting interference by this Court. The learned Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellants in support of their claim. Despite the availability of cogent and reliable evidence establishing the occupation and income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has ignored vital pieces of evidence placed on record and has proceeded to determine the compensation on presumptions and assumptions which are contrary to the record and established legal principles. The learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at a meagre sum of Rs. 4,500/per month, treating it as notional income. It is submitted that the accident in question occurred on 28.08.2014, and the deceased, Gopal Das Bairagi, was a qualified Ayurvedic doctor engaged in medical practice and earning a reasonable livelihood therefrom. The appellants had produced before the learned Tribunal the Registration Certificate issued by the competent Ayurvedic Council to substantiate the professional status of the deceased, as well as other documents showing that he was regularly engaged in medical practice. However, the learned Tribunal, without assigning any cogent reason, failed to consider these documents and arbitrarily assessed the income at notional rate, which is wholly unsustainable in the facts of the case.

¶35

The learned Tribunal further committed an error in not considering

¶36

the future prospects of the deceased while assessing the compensation. It is a settled principle of law, as laid down by the

¶37

6

¶38

Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments, including National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , that while determining the loss of dependency, an addition towards future prospects is mandatory depending upon the age and occupation of the deceased. In the present case, the deceased was in the prime of his professional life and had bright prospects of enhanced earnings with the passage of time. The complete omission of this factor has resulted in serious prejudice to the claimants and has substantially reduced the just compensation payable to them. The learned Tribunal also failed to take into account other heads of compensation such as loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses in a just and reasonable manner. The amounts awarded under these conventional heads are too meagre and not in conformity with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and other binding precedents. The award, therefore, calls for suitable enhancement to ensure that the appellants receive just compensation in accordance with law. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence and material on record in its true perspective and has erred both on facts and in law in assessing the compensation. The impugned award, therefore, deserves to be modified by enhancing the quantum of compensation commensurate with the income,

¶39

7

¶40

profession, and potential of the deceased, as well as the dependency and suffering of the appellants.

¶41

On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondents that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement.

¶42

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶43

In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza.

¶44

Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

¶45

Upon due consideration of the rival submissions and evaluation of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal, though having rightly held the accident to be the result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, has committed an error in assessing the quantum of compensation by applying an unduly low notional income, and by omitting to consider the relevant principles governing the grant of future prospects and other permissible heads of compensation.

¶46

8

¶47

The facts of the case are not in dispute that the accident occurred on 28.08.2014, when the deceased Gopal Das Bairagi, while returning home from his clinic, met with a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. The deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding holding the driver of the offending vehicle responsible for the accident, which finding has not been assailed before this Court and has thus attained finality.

¶48

The only question that arises for consideration in the present appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation to which the claimants are entitled. It is evident from the record that the deceased was a qualified Ayurvedic doctor, duly registered with the competent authority, and was engaged in independent medical practice. However, the learned Tribunal has erroneously treated his income as notional, assessing it at only Rs. 4,500/- per month, without properly considering the evidence adduced by the appellants, including the registration certificate and other supporting documents produced to establish his professional occupation.

¶49

Considering that the accident took place in the year 2014, even if the income of deceased were to be assessed conservatively on the basis of the Minimum Wages Act, the monthly income of a skilled worker during that period stood at approximately Rs. 5,910/- per month. Therefore, the said amount of Rs. 5,910/- per

¶50

9

¶51

month is taken as the just and reasonable income of the deceased for the purpose of computation of compensation.

¶52

Having determined the monthly income at Rs. 5,910/-, the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs. 70,920/- (Rs. 5,910 x 12). The deceased was self-employed as a medical practitioner and, therefore, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), an addition of 10% towards future prospects is justified and required to be made to his established income. Accordingly, the annual income after adding 10% towards future prospects would come to Rs. 78,012/(Rs. 70,920 + Rs. 7,092). The deceased was aged around 52 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the appropriate multiplier applicable for the age group of 51-60 years would be 11. Further, considering that there were four dependents on the deceased, a deduction of 1/4^th is to be made towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, the total amount under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs. 6,43,599/-.

¶53

The claimants are further entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate (increase of 10% in every three years) and Rs. 18,000/- for funeral expenses (increase of 10% in every three years). As per

¶54

' Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the claimants are further entitled for Rs. (40,000/-X4+10%+10%) each (with

¶55

10

¶56

increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 1,92,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 9,76,599 /- in the following

¶57

manner:-

¶58

S.No.	Heads	Calculation
01	Towards loss of dependency	Rs. 6,43,599/-
02	Towards Love and Affection	Rs. 1,00,000/-
03	Towards Mental Agony	Rs. 5,000/-
04	Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X4+10%+10%).	Rs. 1,92,000/-
05	Towards loss of estate along with increase of 10% in everythreeyears.	Rs. 18,000/-
06	Towards Funeral Expenses along with increase of 10% in every threeyears.	Rs. 18,000/-
	Total	Rs. 9,76,599/-

¶59

Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 9,76,599/-. After deducting Rs. 6,85,500/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 2,91,099/-.

¶60

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed . The claimants/appellants shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 2,91,099/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6%

¶61

11

¶62

from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

( Amitendra Kishore Prasad ) JUDGE

¶65

Shayna

Smt. Indubai Vaishnav v. Modhram Mahant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Indubai Vaishnav v. Modhram Mahant

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

Smt. Rajni Patel Vs Ram Manohar Dubey

Sunil Sharma Vs Roshan Kumar

Dharmjit Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Kumar Sen Vs Narayan Sen

Abhishek Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rama Adhikari Vs State of Chhattisgarh