Harihar Singh Vs Angad Kumar

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally ABHIGYA signed by SAXENA ABHIGYA SAXENA

¶3

2025:CGHC:50509

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 1682 of 2017

¶7

1 - Harihar Singh S/o Late Kshetrapal Singh Thakur, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Paragaon, Post Office And Police Station Arang District Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

¶8

2 - Smt. Lakhanbai W/o Harihar Singh, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Paragaon, Post Office And Police Station Arang District Raipur Chhattisgarh , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

3 - Ku. Kusumlata, D/o Harihar Singh Thakur, Aged About 12 Years Minor Represented Through Father And Legal Guadian Harihar Singh, R/o Village Paragaon, Post Office And Police Station Arang District Raipur Chhattisgarh , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Petitioner(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - Angad Kumar S/o Dashrath Sahu, Through Smt. Jamila Begum W/o Moheruddin, House No. 144, Dhancha Bhawan, Sunder Bihar, Chopda Colony, Bhilai, Police Station Bhilai- 3 District Durg Chhattisgarh Driver Of Vehivle No. C. G. 04- C A-3556, Chhattisgarh

¶13

2 - Smt. Jamila Begum, W/o Moheruddin, House No. 144, Dhancha Bhawan, Sunder Bihar, Chopda Colony, Bhilai, Police Station Bhilai 3, District Durg Chhattisgarh Owner Of Vehicle No. C. G. 04- C A- 3556 , District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶14

2

¶15

3 - Magma H. D. I. General Insurance Company Limited, Through Incharge Officer, Magcha H. D. I. General Insurance Co. Ltd. Quarter No.3, Ground Floor, Chirhuldih Ward, Raipur, In Front Of Rajkumar College, Police Station Amanaka, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Insurer Of Vehicle No. C. G. 04- C A-3556 , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

4 - Rameshwar Sahu, S/o Narayan Sahu, R/o Pragati Nagar, Kurud, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh, Registered Owner Of Vehicle No. C. G. 04- C A-3556 , District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶17

... Respondent(s)

¶18

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶20

Order on Board (09.10.2025)

¶21

This appeal arises out of the award dated 08.03.2017 passed by the

¶22

4^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.660/2014 whereby a compensation of Rs.7,18,500/- with interest @ 09% per annum, in favour of the appellants/claimants for their irreparable loss.

¶23

The facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that the claimants are seeking compensation of ₹25,35,000/- from the respondents on account of the death of Yashwant Singh Thakur, aged about 25 years, who was the son of Appellants No.1 and 2 and brother of Appellant No.3. As per the case of the appellants, on 26.02.2014, the deceased Yashwant Singh Thakur was travelling as a pillion rider along with one Dilip on a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-04-KQ-0512, which was being driven by Dilip. When they reached near the petrol

¶24

3

¶25

pump at Village Jhalap, their motorcycle was hit by an offending motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-07-CA-3556, being driven rashly and negligently by Respondent No.1, resulting in the instant death of Dilip and grievous injuries to Yashwant Singh Thakur, who later succumbed to his injuries during treatment at the hospital. It was further contended by the appellants that the deceased was working as a mason and earning ₹10,000/- per month. Upon notice, the respondents filed their written statements denying the claims. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at ₹4,500/-, and by adding 50% towards future prospects, determined the annual income as ₹81,000/-. Deducting 1/2 towards personal expenses and applying a multiplier of 17, the Tribunal calculated the total dependency compensation as ₹6,88,500/-, and further awarded ₹30,000/- under conventional heads.

¶26

When the claim application for compensation was filed by the present appellants/claimants of deceased before the Claims Tribunal against the driver, owner and insurance company of the alleged vehicle, the Tribunal has taken income of the deceased as Rs.4500/- per month i.e. Rs.54,000/- per annum. The deceased was aged about 25 years and the claimants are the parent and sister of the deceased and further addition of 50% future prospect towads the income of the deceased i.e. Rs.27,000/- and the deduction was ½ towards personal expenses i.e. Rs.40,500/- total income would be Rs.40,500/-. After applying multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency calculated to Rs. 6,88,500/-. The medical expenses calculated by the Tribunal is Rs.4,52,033/- and on

¶27

4

¶28

other heads Rs.30,000/- has been calculated and awarded total compensation of Rs.7,18,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum, in favour of the appellants/claimants. Hence, this appeal for enhancement.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. The learned Claims Tribunal has committed a grave legal error in disbelieving the testimony of the claimants’ witnesses, who were duly examined in support of their pleadings. The rejection of their statements amounts to a failure in appreciating the evidence on record. The learned Claims Tribunal erred in holding that the Tribunal has failed to consider the multiplier of the deceased. In the present case, multiplier of 18 should rightly be considered and loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium should be considered in light of the precedents set by this Hon’ble Court in National Insurance

¶30

Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others1 . It ought to have considered that the deceased left behind parents and his sister making a total of three dependents. The findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal are perverse and contrary to law, and therefore liable to be set aside. The Tribunal’s conclusions run contrary to the documentary evidence and oral testimony on record, reflecting a failure to properly consider the facts in their correct perspective. The learned Claims Tribunal also erred in awarding interest at the rate of 9% per annum, warranting suitable enhancement of the interest awarded. In light of the above, the appellants respectfully pray that the impugned

¶31

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶32

5

¶33

award be set aside and the claim be enhanced as per the submissions made herein.

¶34

On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent Insurance Company that in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal requires no interference of this Court and no further enhancement is required to be made, therefore, the appeal filed by the claimants is liable to be dismissed.

¶35

I Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶36

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.

¶37

Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.7,18,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

¶38

As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and working as daily wager, and there is no documentary evidence in support thereof has been produced, Therefore, upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate that the income of the deceased should be Rs.5,468/- as per minimum wages, at the relevant

¶39

6

¶40

time of accident. The annual income of the deceased is Rs.65,616/- per annum. As per Pranay Sethi (supra) .

¶41

The deceased was aged about 25 years and was married and the claimants are the parents and children of the deceased so in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and 2 others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another , and Pranay Sethi (supra) , after adding 50% towards future prospects i.e. Rs.65,616/- + Rs.32,808/- = Rs.98,424/- (Rs.65,616/- x 50/100 = Rs.32,808/-), deduction towards personal expenses would be 50% which comes to Rs.49,212/- (Rs.98424/- / 2 = Rs.49,212/-), the annual income comes to Rs.49,212/-. Further, considering the age of the deceased multiplier of 18 would be applicable, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.8,85,816/-. The claimants are further entitled for loss of estate Rs. 18,000/- (10% increase in every three years), for funeral expenses Rs. 18,000/- (10% increase in every three years) and as per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu,3 the claimants are further entitled for loss of consortium Rs. 48,000/- (10% increase in every three years) each i.e. Rs.1,44,000/-. Therefore, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs.10,65,816/-. In light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors4, this Court reassesses the compensation in the following manner:-

¶42

2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶43

3 AIR Online 2018 SC 189

¶44

4 (2011) 1 SCC 343

¶45

7

¶46

Sn.	Heads	Calculation
01	Income of the Deceased	Rs.65,616/- (Rs.5468/- x 12)
02	Future Prospect 50%	Rs.32,808/- (Rs.65,616/- x 50%)
03	Deduction ½	Rs.49,212/- (Rs. 98,424 - 50%)
04	Total Income of the Deceased	Rs.49,212/- (98,424/- – Rs.49,212/-)
05	Multiplier of 18	Rs.8,85,816/- (Rs.49,212/- x 18)
06	Towards loss of estate	Rs. 18,000/-
07	Funeral Expenses	Rs. 18,000/-
08	Towards loss of consortium to all the six claimants @ Rs.48,000/- x 4	Rs. 1,44,000/-
	Total	Rs.10,65,816/-

¶47

Accordingly, the total compensation is enhanced to

¶48

Rs.10,65,816/- from Rs.7,18,500/- . Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs.3,47,316/- , which shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal (9% p.a.) from the date of claim petition till realization.

¶49

As a result, the appeal is allowed in part . The award dated 08.03.2017 is modified to the extent indicated above . Rest of the terms and conditions of the Tribunal’s award remain intact.

¶50

Certified Copy as per rules.

¶51

Sd/-/-

¶52

( Amitendra Kishore Prasad ) JUDGE

¶53

Saxena

Harihar Singh v. Angad Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harihar Singh v. Angad Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tanuja Ekka Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shabbir Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shivraj Singh Painkra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lala Dewangan Vs Vijay Tiwari

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Buddhuram

Bhim Prasad Gupta Vs Mukesh Kumar Gupta