National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Milan Bai Sahu

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:31199

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 268 of 2020

¶6

National Insurance Company Ltd. Through- Branch Manager, Branch Office - No.1, Bhutani Complex, G Road, Power House, Bhilai, District – Durg (CG) Insurance Company of Offending Vehicle 108 No.CG02 A 3201.

¶7

... Appellant (Non-applicant No.5)

¶8

versus

¶9

Smt. Milan Bai Sahu W/o Late Nathuram Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village - Lahod, Tehsil - Baloda Bazar, District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh,

¶10

Nirmal Sahu S/o Late Nathuram Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village - Lahod, Tehsil - Baloda Bazar, District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh,

¶11

Smt. Nirmala D/o Late Nathuram Sahu Aged About 45 Years W/o Rajkumar Sahu, At Present R/o Ward No.04, Sadakpara, District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh,

¶12

Smt. Girja D/o Late Nathuram Sahu Aged About 46 Years W/o Hemant Sahu, At Present R/o Ward No. 05 Khairadatan, Tehsil And District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶13

Smt. Yashoda D/o Late Nathuram Sahu, W/o Jeetpal Sahu, aged about 34 years At Present R/o Sudela Khatiyapati Tehsil And District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶14

2

¶15

Smt. Neha D/o Late Nathuram Sahu, W/o Khemu Sahu, aged about 32 years At Present R/o Gali No.2, Sai Mandir,Ravi Gram, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur (CG).

¶16

Smt. Sevati D/o Late Nathuram Sahu, W/o Dharmendra Sahu, aged about 30 years At Present R/o Beechpara, Tehsil Simga, Budgahan,Bhatpera, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶17

Smt. Rewati, D/o Late Nathuram Sahu, W/o Jitendra Sahu, aged about 28 years At Present R/o Sudela Khatiyapati TTehsil And District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. All respondents from 3 to 8 are permanent R/o Lahod, Tehsil Balodabazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (CGG)

¶18

Ujendra Jalsej, S/o Maheshram Jalsej, aged about 38 years, R/o Village Bana, Tehsil Kharora, Distt. Raipur (CG), Driver of offending vehicle 108 No.CG02-A-3201.

¶19

Commissioner, Health N.A. Director of Health Services, R/o D.K.S. Bhawan, Near Mantralaya , Raipur (CG) Owner of offending vehicle 108 No.CG02-A-3201.

¶20

... Respondent(s)

¶21

For Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 to 8 : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent No.9 : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶22

Judgment On Board

¶23

8/7/2025

¶24

Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal challenging the award dated 18.9.2019 passed by the learned 3^rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar District Balodabazar Bhatapara (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) on the ground that the Claims Tribunal has awarded exorbitant compensation under the head of loss of

¶25

3

¶26

dependency to the claimants, who are parents and children of deceased.

¶27

Facts of the case in brief are that on 6.5.2017 the motorcycle in which Nathuram Sahu (deceased) was traveling as a pillion was dashed by Ambulance 108 bearing registration mark CG02-A-3021as a result Nathuram Sahu fell on road from motorcycle, sustained grievous injuries on head and died during the course of treatment. An application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) was filed by claimants seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.42,00,000/- with interest on the ground that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of offending vehicle.

¶28

Non-applicant No.1-driver of offending vehicle, and Nonapplicant No.2, owner of offending vehicle, filed separate reply to application denying the averments made therein including the rashness and negligence on the part of driver and pleading that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of driver of motor-cycle in which deceased was travelling as pillion.

¶29

Non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company filed its reply denying its liability to indemnify the insured on the ground that at the time of accident, non-applicant No.1-driver of offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving license,

¶30

4

¶31

which amounts to violation of condition of insurance policy.

¶32

The Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of facts and evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the application in part, awarded compensation of Rs.5,06,550/together with interest @ 7% p.a. and held the non-applicants, jointly and severally, liable for payment of compensation.

¶33

Learned counsel for appellant vehemently contended that the Claims Tribunal erred in deducting one-fifth from the income of deceased towards his personal and living expenses by treating claimant No.3 to 8 as dependent on deceased. Claimant No.2 to 8 are married daughters of the deceased who, at the time of accident, were residing with their husband in her respective matrimonial home.

¶34

Learned counsel for claimants-respondents No.1 to 8 would submit that respondents No.3 to 8 are daughters of the deceased, who was government servant, and therefore, he might be spending some amount upon them and hence, the Claims Tribunal justified in applying deduction of one-fifth to the assessed income of deceased.

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned award and documents available in record of the Claims Tribunal.

¶36

The Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that claimant No.1 is

¶37

5

¶38

widow of deceased, claimant No.2 is son and claimants No.3 to 8 are married daughters of deceased. It is well settled that a married daughter residing in her matrimonial home with her husband cannot be said to be dependent on her father. For claiming compensation under the Act of 1988, in particular compensation under the head of loss of dependency, the claimant should be dependent upon the deceased. Since claimants No.3 to 8 are married daughters of deceased, residing in her matrimonial home, hence they would not be considered as dependent family members of the deceased and therefore, one-fifth deduction from the income of the deceased for personal and living expenses made by the Tribunal for the purpose of assessing loss of dependency was erroneous. As claimant No.1 is the widow of the deceased, the correct deduction would be one-third. It is ordered accordingly.

¶39

10.In view of above, now I will consider whether the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just compensation or a bounty to the claimants?

¶40

11.The compensation to be awarded to the claimants should be adequate and not bonanza. The Claims Tribunal disbelieving the plea of claimants that deceased was retired government employee and getting pension of Rs.9,000/- per month in absence of documentary and acceptable evidence, has assessed monthly income of deceased as Rs.6,000/- from all sources considering evidence of claimant No.1-widow who

¶41

6

¶42

stated in her cross-examination that she is getting half pension and further income from agriculture. Fixation of income of deceased by the Claims Tribunal, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be said to be erroneous being based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and therefore, it is affirmed.

¶43

12.Perusal of record would show that the Claims Tribunal apart from loss of dependency has awarded a sum of Rs.73,350/towards medical expenses, Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. However, the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of consortium. Award of compensation under the head of loss of consortium is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , which was further clarified and specified by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram , reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 by observing that widow/husband, children and parents of the deceased are separately entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- for the loss of spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium respectively. In the case at hand, the claimants are widow and children of deceased and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, they are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/-each under the head of loss of consortium i.e. spousal, parental and filial. It is ordered accordingly.

¶44

7

¶45

In view of the above, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal requires to be revisited and reassessed.

¶46

Consequently, income of the deceased is taken as Rs.6,000/p.m. and thus annual income comes to Rs.72,000/-. Out of this, one-third is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, as held above, and after deducting one-third, total income of the deceased would be Rs.48,000/-. By applying multiplier of 7, as applied by the Claims Tribunal, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,36,000/-. Besides this, claimants/ respondents No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- for spousal consortium respondents No.2 to 8 are also entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each for parental consortium. Apart from this, claimants are also entitled for Rs.73,350/- towards medical expenses, Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses, making the total compensation payable Rs.7,59,350/- (3,36,000 + 3,20,000 + 73,350 + 15000 + 15000). However, the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.5,06,550/- only to the claimants, which is lesser than the amount of compensation recalculated by this Court.

¶47

In case of Ranjana Prakash and others v. Divisional Manager and another , reported in 2011 (14) SCC 639 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that High Court cannot

¶48

8

¶49

enhance the compensation in an appeal filed by owner/ insurer for reducing the compensation. Relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads thus:-

¶50

"8. Where an appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation, irrespective of who files the appeal, the appropriate course for the High Court is to examine the facts and by applying the relevant principles, determine the just compensation. If the compensation determined by it is higher than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will allow the appeal, if it is by the claimants and dismiss the appeal, if it is by the owner/insurer. Similarly, if the compensation determined by the High Court is lesser than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will dismiss any appeal by the claimants for enhancement, but allow any appeal by owner/insurer for reduction. The High Court cannot obviously increase the compensation in an appeal by owner/insurer for reducing the compensation, nor can it reduce the compensation in an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.”

¶51

Present appeal is filed by insurance company challenging quantum of compensation on the ground of wrong application of deduction towards personal and living expenses of deceased. Though deduction of one-fifth made by the Claims Tribunal towards personal expenses of deceased is found to be erroneous and accordingly it has been reduced to one-

¶52

9

¶53

third, however, upon rel;computation taking deduction as onethird and adding compensation on other heads, compensation would be more than what is awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Therefore, in view of decision of Ranjana Prakash (supra) and facts of the case, though the ground raised by appellant is allowed, however, the impugned award is not interfered with for aforementioned reasons.

¶54

In view of the above, appeal stands disposed off.

¶55

SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI

¶56

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶57

roshan/-

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Milan Bai Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Milan Bai Sahu

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

Bhukhan Lal Vishwakarma Vs Hulas Sahu

Kartikram Sahu Vs Durgeshwar Nayak

Ku. Nishtha Pandey Vs Joji Babu Ji

Smt. Ankumari Sahu Vs Mannulal Sahu

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Rani Vastrakar

Jageshwar Dewangan Vs Noharlal Singh