Partly allowed

Smt Fulo Bai Nayak v. Rathram Paikra

Chhattisgarh HC2 Apr 2025MAC/197/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fatal motor accident claim appeal by mother of deceased challenging inadequate compensation. Court reassessed notional income using minimum wages for unskilled labourer, applied 40% future prospects and awarded Rs.40,000 filial consortium per Pranay Sethi, enhancing total compensation to Rs.13,27,984 with interest at 8%.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.13,27,984/- with interest @ 8% p.a.; impugned award modified accordingly.

Smt Fulo Bai Nayak Vs Rathram Paikra — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

Page No.1

2025:CGHC:15625

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 197 of 2020

¶6

Smt Fulo Bai Nayak W/o Late Mani Ram Nayak, Aged About 60 Years R/o Nayapara Sirgitty, Police Station Sirgitty, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

Rathram Paikra S/o Dharmu Aged About 47 Years R/o House No. 45, Dadarkala, 3 Village Dadarkala, Kartala, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh..(Driver Of Offending Vehicle Trailer Bearing Registration No. C.G. 11 - Al- 7600),

¶10

Anand Kumar Modi S/o Pawan Kumar Modi R/o House No. 13, /5 Modi Chowk , Naya Baradwar Nagar Panchayat Baradwar, Tahsil And District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh...(Owner Of Offending Vehicle Trailer Bearing Registration No. C.G.11-Al-7600),

¶11

The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager , Divisional Office, Second Floor, Rama Trade Center, In Front Of Rajiv Plaza , Old Bus Stand , Bilaspur , Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh...(Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Trailer Bearing Registration No. C.G. 11 - Al- 7600).

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Mr. Om Prakash Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board

¶15

03/04/2025

¶16

Digitally signed by NISHA NISHA DUBEY DUBEY Date:2025.04.09 16:31:30 +0530

¶17

Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal challenging the award dated 07.11.2019 passed by the learned 7^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.21/2019 whereby the Claims Tribunal allowed claim application of

¶18

Page No.2

¶19

claimants in part and awarded compensation of Rs.10,37,200/- to appellant herein along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of application, in a fatal accident case.

¶20

Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 10.12.2018 Kamlesh Nayak (since deceased) and Uttam Kumar were returning on motorcycle from Akaltara to village Tarod. Motorcycle was driven by Kamlesh Nayak carefully following the rules of Traffic. When they reached near liquor shop, at that time Trailer vehicle bearing registration No.CG11-AL-7600, which was coming from opposite direction and driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1 herein, dashed their motorcycle and caused accident. In the said accident, Kamlesh Nayak and Uttam Nayak both suffered grievous injuries as a result of which both died on spot. Accident was reported to concerned police station based on which Crime No.354/2018 for commission of alleged offence under Sections 279, 337 & 304A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against respondent No.1.

¶21

Claimant/appellant herein, who is mother of deceased, filed an application claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.29,55,000/- under various heads on the ground that on the date of accident, deceased was working as Mechanic in Kamlesh Auto Parts Shop, earning Rs.15,000/- per month and she was dependent on earning of deceased.

¶22

Non-Applicants No.1, driver of offending vehicle, filed his reply to application denying averments made therein. It was

¶23

Page No.3

¶24

pleaded that accident took place due to negligence of deceased and therefore Non-Applicant No.1 cannot be held liable for accident. On the date of accident, the driver of offending vehicle was having valid & effective driving license and as the offending vehicle was fully insured with nonapplicant No.3-insurance company, therefore, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner in case any compensation is awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

¶25

Non-applicant No.2/respondent No.2 herein did not appear before the Claims Tribunal and therefore, he was proceeded ex-parte.

¶26

Non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company filed its separate reply and denied averments made in claim application except that on the date of accident the offending motorcycle was insured with it. Driver of offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license and other documents relating to offending vehicle were also not valid and effective. As the vehicle was being plied in violation of conditions of insurance policy, therefore, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured.

¶27

The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the pleadings and evidence placed on record (oral and documentary both) by respective parties has arrived at a conclusion that accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1; disbelieved the employment of deceased and therefore

¶28

assessed monthly income of deceased at

¶29

Page No.4

¶30

Rs.6,000/- on notional basis. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal partly allowed claim application and awarded compensation Rs.10,37,200/- along with interest @ 8% p.a.

¶31

Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submits that the claimants in their evidence have specifically stated that on the date of accident, deceased was working as Mechanic and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, the Claims Tribunal had not assessed income of deceased accordingly. He submits that even if they failed to prove the nature of employment of deceased and his engagement ought to be taken as Labourer and the income of deceased could have been assessed on the minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority for unskilled labourer. He further argued that the Claims Tribunal has awarded less amount towards future prospects and even the amount awarded under other conventional head are also on lower side. In addition to the compensation on other head, the claimants would also be entitled for loss of filial consortium i.e. Rs.40,000/- to each of the claimants being parents of the deceased, who was bachelor on the date of accident, and the interest awarded by the Claims Tribunal is also on the lower side, He prayed for enhancement of amount of compensation suitably.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent supported the impugned award. He submits that the claimants failed to bring on record any documentary evidence establishing income of deceased as pleaded and stated by them. In

¶33

Page No.5

¶34

absence thereof, the Claims Tribunal justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. He further submits that amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in the given facts and circumstances of case is just and proper and it does not call for any interference.

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶36

As regards the income of deceased, according to appellants, the deceased was working as Mechanic and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but no evidence has been led on behalf of appellants to substantiate the claim that deceased was engaged as Mechanic and earning that much of amount. In absence of any evidence with reference to employment and income of deceased, the Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month on notional basis. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Claims Tribunal cannot be said to have committed an error in fixing the monthly income of deceased notionally. But, at the same time, the question is whether monthly income fixed notionally invites interference? It is well settled that upon claimants/appellants failure to prove the occupation and income of deceased, it is for the Claims Tribunal to consider income of deceased taking into account the price index, wage structure prevailing on the date of accident and also wage rate fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act,1948 for the District/place of residence of the deceased. However, from the impugned award it does not appear that the Claims Tribunal

¶37

Page No.6

¶38

has taken recourse to wage rate as fixed by the Competent Authority and prevalent at the relevant point of time. Hence, the monthly income of deceased is required to be assessed.

¶39

Considering the date of accident i.e. 10.12.2018 and taking into account the wage rate fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for unskilled Labourer residing in ‘A’ Category cities, and prevalent on the date of accident, which was Rs.8,320/- per month, I find it appropriate to fix income of the deceased at Rs.8,320/- per month, who was resident of Sirgitti, Bilaspur, which falls within the category of ‘A’ Class city and died in the year 2018. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.8,320/-.

¶40

Addition of income towards future prospects; standard deduction towards personal expenses of deceased; multiplier applied by the Claims Tribunal for assessing the amount of compensation and amount awarded under the head of loss of estate, funeral expenses and transportation conveyance is correct and need no interference. However, award of Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimant/appellant towards loss of consortium is not as per law settled in this regard. In case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2016) 17 SCC 680, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a sum of Rs.40,000/- each is to be awarded as filial consortium to the parents of a deceased who died in a road accident. Thus, the Claims Tribunal should have awarded Rs.40,000/each to claimant/ appellant under the head of filial consortium

¶41

Page No.7

¶42

and not lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore, it is ordered that appellant is entitled for Rs.40,000/- for filial consortium.

¶43

14.For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants.

¶44

15.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.8,320/- per month and since at the time of accident the deceased was 24 years old and working as labourer, therefore, in view of the law laid down in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) , the income of deceased is required to be enhanced by 40% towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.11,648/(8320+3328). Thus, annual income of deceased for the purpose of calculating compensation comes to Rs.1,39,776/(11648x12). Out of this amount, half is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased being bachelor and after deducting half, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.69,888/-. By applying multiplier of 18 as applied by Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency, total loss of dependency would come to Rs.12,57,984/- (69888x18). Besides this, appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/towards filial consortium being parent of the deceased, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram reported in (2018) 8 SCC 130 . Apart from this, appellant is also entitled for Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate. Thus,

¶45

Page No.8

¶46

total amount of compensation comes to Rs.13,27,984/(12,57,984 + 40,000 + 15000 + 15000) recoverable from the respondent. This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶47

16.Any amount already paid to claimant/appellant as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above.

¶48

17.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above.

¶49

Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶50

Nisha

Smt Fulo Bai Nayak v. Rathram Paikra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Fulo Bai Nayak v. Rathram Paikra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Tapeshwari Vs Harjindar Singh

Nirbhay Ram Mandavi Vs Kannan @ Kanam

Ashok Prasad Tamrakar Vs Md. Sajid Ansari

Gopal Singh Koumarya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Resham Bai Nayak Vs Rathram Paikra

Amrit Singh Vs Prakash Soni