Dismissed

Santosh Kumar Chouhan v. Natwar Sharma

Chhattisgarh HC7 Apr 2025MAC/224/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this claimants' appeal seeking enhanced compensation for the death of a cleaner, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's award. The Court found the appellants were married with separate families and not dependents, refusing to add dependency compensation.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; no additional compensation for loss of dependency granted.

Santosh Kumar Chouhan Vs Natwar Sharma — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

-1-

2025:CGHC:16512

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 224 of 2020

¶6

1 - Santosh Kumar Chouhan S/o Late Shri Budhwari Chouhan Aged About 50 Years

¶7

2 - Sita D/o Late Shri Budhwari

¶8

Both are R/o Village Raipura, Baradwar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Mand Dam Near Rest House, Tahsil And Police Station Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Appellant (s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Natwar Sharma S/o Maniram Sharma, R/o Village Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Swaraj Mazda Vehicle Bearing Registration No. C.G. 10/W 9153), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - The Oriental Company Limited Branch Manager Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Offending Swaraj Mazda Vehicle Bearing Registration No. C.G. 10/W 9153), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Appellant (s) : Mr. M.K. Jaiswal, Advocate For Resp. No.3 : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate

¶15

__________________________________________________________

¶16

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.04.15 15:00:24 +0530

¶17

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶18

Judgment On Board

¶19

-2-

¶20

08/04/2025

¶21

With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally.

¶22

This is the claimants’ appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Seventh Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (CG) vide award dated 30.09.2019 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.44 of 2017.

¶23

Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (CG), pleading therein that they are legal heirs of deceased -Nanki Daau Chauhan. Deceased Nanki Daau was working as Cleaner on Swaraj Mazda Vehicle No. C.G. 10/W 9153. On 25.03.2017 at about 11.30 pm, when deceased- Nanki Daau was going from Raigarh to Bilaspur in the said vehicle, on the way, driver of the Swaraj Mazda vehicle driving it rashly and negligently, dashed against a Neem tree and caused an accident. In the said accident, Nanki Daau, sitting in the vehicle, suffered serious injuries and died on the spot. At the time of the incident, deceased Nanki Daau was 27 years old, earning Rs. 6,500/- per month by working as a Cleaner, and from the said income, he was maintaining applicants i.e. his siblings. They prayed for grant of compensation of Rs. 36,14,000/- with interest from the non-applicants.

¶24

Non -applicant No.1 by filing his written statement has opposed the

¶25

-3-

¶26

claim application and pleaded that deceased was in intoxicated condition at the time of accident and the accident took place due to his negligence, for which compensation should not be granted. The applicants are the elder brother and younger sister of the deceased who do not fall in the category of dependent legal heirs. The applicants have not proved the income and work of the deceased. They have also not adduced any document in this regard. Since the negligence of the deceased was hidden by the applicants, their claim application is not maintainable.

¶27

Non-applicant No. 2 in its written statement also opposed the claim application and pleaded that the said accident was not caused by the vehicle in question. The alleged accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Swaraj Mazda vehicle. Since the driver of offending vehicle died in the accident, his legal heirs are necessary parties in the case. Similarly, on the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No. 1 in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy i.e without a valid and effective fitness, permit and driving license and as such, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

¶28

Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by the respective parties, held that on the date of accident, driver of the Swaraj Mazda vehicle namely Ashok Chouhan drove the offending vehicle rashly and negligently, due to which, said accident occurred in which Nanki Daau Chouhan

¶29

-4-

¶30

sustained grievous injuries resulting in his death. Recording a finding that breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, learned Claims Tribunal held nonapplicants No.1 & 2 liable to pay the amount of compensation to the applicants/claimants, jointly and severally.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation to the appellants/claimants towards loss of dependency in the facts and circumstances of the case. He contended that deceased was residing with the appellants, hence, they are entitled for compensation towards loss of dependency being brother and sister of the deceased.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and would submit that learned Tribunal has rightly not awarded any amount of compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’. He submits that appellants were not dependent upon income of the deceased as per finding recorded by the Tribunal, hence, the impugned award does not call for any interference.

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused record of the Claims Tribunal.

¶34

Undisputely, the appellants/claimants are married brother and married sister of the deceased. From evidence of appellant/ claimant No.1 Santosh Kumar Chouhan A.W.1, it is evident that he is also married having separate family. Appellant/claimant No.2 is

¶35

-5-

¶36

also married and having separate family. In his evidence, he stated that in the Ration Card of his family prepared, name of his deceased brother, name of her sister as also sister’s husband are not mentioned. In his cross-examination he further stated that he is maintaining his own family and his brother-in-law is maintaining family of his sister. In the aforementioned facts of the case, it cannot be said that the appellants/claimants were dependents upon income of the deceased.

¶37

The issue with respect to compensation towards loss of dependency claimed by brother and sister of the deceased was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anand Pal & Ors. (2024 ACJ 6) wherein it was held that siblings of victim were older, married and have their own respective families. In these circumstances, they being dependent on the victim’s earnings is unlikely particularly when the victim resided separately.

¶38

In the case at hand also, there is no evidence brought on record by the appellants/claimants that deceased was residing along with the family of the appellants/claimants. In fact, both the appellants/ claimants have their own families and are residing separately.

¶39

Recently, in Civil Appeal No.3763 of 2025 parties being Sadhana Tomar & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kushwaha & Ors., decided on 24^th January 2025, Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue with respect to legal representative of the deceased eligible to seek compensation, reiterated its earlier decision in the case of Gujarat

¶40

-6-

¶41

SRTC Vs. Ramanbhai Prabhabhai (1987) 3 SCC 234 wherein it was observed that legal representative is one, who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent or child.

¶42

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that appellants are having separate families, there is no evidence that deceased was residing along with them as also considering the aforementioned decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that appellants are not entitled for any amount of compensation towards loss of dependency.

¶43

Hence, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned award. The appeal being sans merit is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶46

Praveen

Santosh Kumar Chouhan v. Natwar Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Chouhan v. Natwar Sharma

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. Ghana Bai Yadav Vs Executive Director

Smt. Sarita Verma Vs Satish Kumar Chandrakar

Kunwar Das Jangde Vs Santosh Kumar Kaiwartya

Urmila Vs Akbar Ali

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Bihanu

Harish Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh