Chanikram Sahu Vs Gangaram Verma

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:33908

¶3

NAFR

¶4

Digitally signed by HARNEET HARNEET KAUR KAUR Date: 2025.07.21 11:59:50 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 172 of 2022

¶7

1 - Chanikram Sahu S/o Darbari Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Lafinkhurd, Ward No. 12, Police Station Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Nirabai Sahu W/o Chanikram Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Lafinkhurd, Ward No. 12, Police Station Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Meghraj Sahu S/o Chanikram Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Lafinkhurd, Ward No. 12, Police Station Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

… Appellants

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Gangaram Verma S/o Tejram Verma Aged About 32 Years R/o Guru Ghasi, Ward No. 23, Subhash Nagar Near Gaura Chaura, Police Station Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Motor Cycle H.F. Deluxe No. Cg-06-Cj/1834.

¶11

2 - Roman Dhruv S/o Dularuram Dhruv Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Lafinkhurd, Police Station, Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Motor Cycle H.F. Deluxe No. Cg-06-Cj/1834).

¶12

2

¶13

3 - Branch Manager Tata A.I.G. Insurance Company Limited, Fourth Floor, Block No.9, Dainik Bhaskar City Corporate Park, Rajbandha Maidan Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company Of Motor Cycle H.F. Deluxe No. Cg-06-Gj/1834).

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Appellants : Mr. Kripesh G. Kela, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate

¶16

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board

¶17

17.07.2025

¶18

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 24/11/2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Mahasamund, District Mahasamund in Claim Case No. H- 46/2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 5,63,600/- as compensation for the death of Vasudev Sahu, who was a student, aged about 17 years.

¶19

2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 23/01/2018, deceased Vasudev Sahu had gone to Teela Dam along with his friends on Motorcycle H.F. Deluxe

¶20

3

¶21

bearing registration No. CG 06-GJ/1834 and while they were returning to village Chingroud, deceased Vasudev Sahu was sitting in the said motorcycle as pillion rider behind respondent No. 1 Gangaram Verma, who was driving the motorcycle and at about 7 PM, on account of his rash and negligent driving, deceased Vasudev Sahu tumbled from the motorcycle and fell on the road and sustained a grievous injury on his head and became unconscious and on 24/01/2018, he was taken to District Hospital, Mahasamund for treatment wherein he succumbed to the injury and died during the course of the treatment. On the basis of the report lodged at Police Station Mahasamund, crime No. 122/2018 was registered against the Driver i.e. respondent No. 1 and offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC.

¶22

3. Appellants, who are father, mother and brother of deceased Vasudev Sahu, respectively, filed an application under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 11,20,000/pleading therein that on the date of the accident, deceased Vasudev Sahu was aged about 17 years and was a ablebodied person and a promising student who was interested in higher studies and doing a job with good earning and on account of his untimely death in the accident, the

¶23

4

¶24

appellants have suffered economical and psychological difficulties.

¶25

4. Respondents No. 1 & 2 -driver and owner of the motorcycle submitted their reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that the accident was not caused by the aforesaid motorcycle and the deceased has died on account of his own carelessness, moreover, on the date of the accident, respondent No. 1 had valid driving license as well as the motorcycle was duly insured with respondent No. 3, therefore, the liability of compensation lies upon the Insurance Company i.e. respondent No. 3.

¶26

5. Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Insurance Company has opposed the claim application stating that the said Motorcycle was being used in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy.

¶27

6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Vasudev Sahu died in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid Motorcycle driven by respondent No. 1 and owned by respondent No. 2. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, and after calculating the amount of compensation, awarded Rs. 5,63,600/- as total

¶28

5

¶29

compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application.

¶30

7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month which should be Rs. 7,020/- as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for agriculture work. It is further contended that the Claims Tribunal ha s erred in not awarding any compensation under the head of ‘loss of consortium (for brother)’, therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced.

¶31

8. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the appellants have failed to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence, the Tribunal is justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. The amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference.

¶32

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶33

6

¶34

10. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased Vasudev Sahu to be Rs. 3,000/-, however, in the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for agriculture work, the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs. 7,020/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time) and Rs. 84,280/- per annum. Moreover, a sum of Rs. 80,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal to appellants No. 1 and 2 as loss of parental consortium whereas a sum of Rs. 40,000/may also be awarded as loss of consortium (for brother i.e. appellant No. 3).

¶35

11. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi 1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors 2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu

¶36

Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3, this Court is computing the

¶37

compensation as below:-

¶38

Sr.	Heads	Compensation	Compensation
No.		awarded by th	e awarded by this
		Tribunal	Court
1.	Income	Rs. 3000 x 12	= Rs. 7020 x 12 =
		Rs. 36,000/-	Rs. 84,280/-

¶39

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶40

2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶41

3 (2018) 18 SCC 130

¶42

7

¶43

2.	Future Prospect	(+)	40% i.e.	(+)	40%	i.e.
		Rs.	14,400 =	Rs.	33,696 =	Rs.
		Rs.	50,400/-	1,1	7,936/-
3.	Deduction	(-)	½ =	(-)	½	=
		Rs.	25,200/-	Rs.	58,968/-
4.	Multiplier	(x)	18 =	(x)	18	=
		Rs.	4,53,600/-	Rs.	10,61,42	4/-
5.	Loss of Estate	Rs.	15,000/-	Rs,	15,000/-
6.	Funeral Expenses	Rs.	15,000/-	Rs.	15,000/-
7.	Loss of Pare Consortium	ntal Rs.	80,000/-	Rs.	80,000/-
8.	Loss of Consortium brother)	(for Not	assessed	Rs.	40,000/-
	Total	Rs.	5,63,600/-	Rs.	12,11,42	4/-

¶44

12. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 5,63,600/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 12,11,424/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 5,63,600/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 6,47,824/- . The Respondents are directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 03/05/2019 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶45

8

¶46

13. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. The deposit Tribunal shall pass appropriate order with regard to apportionment, investment and disbursement of the enhanced amount of compensation.

¶47

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶48

Harneet

Chanikram Sahu v. Gangaram Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chanikram Sahu v. Gangaram Verma

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

Pitambar @ Poshan Nishad Vs Shivprasad Singh

Smt. Mina Devi Vs Pravin Bairagi

Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited. Vs Smt. Swarnmala Sahu

Smt. Manimala Vs Dughdish Pandey @ Kishor Kumar Pandey

Smt Sita Bai Rajput Vs Ashwini Rajput

Sanjay Hajare Vs State of Chhattisgarh