Smt. Indrani Verma Vs Chote Lal

Chote Lal S/o Hichpati Aged About 30 Years R/o - Village - Kursa, Post - Donga, P.S. - Jiyavan, District -Singrouli,(M.P.) ( Driver of Offending Vehicle CG-14-MG-8700)

¶15

Mahendrapal Singh S/o Indra Singh Bhatiya Aged About 48 Years R/o - Opp. Water Tank Raigarh Road Pathalgaon, P.S. - Pathalgaon, District – Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ( Owner of Offending Vehicle CG-14-MG-8700)

¶16

Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Com. Ltd. Branch Office, Madina Mandir Kachahari Chowk, G.E. Road Raipur, District - Raipur, Present Add - Devendra Nagar Road, Chawala Complex, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶17

--- Respondents/ Non-applicants

¶18

For Appellants : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶20

Judgment On Board

¶21

24/07/2025

¶22

PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA

¶23

2 / 8

¶24

Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the award dated 14.10.2019 passed by Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar, Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 113/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 17,50,000/- as compensation in motor accidental death case.

¶25

Brief facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 09.04.2018 at about 06:30 pm Jeevanlal while riding on his motorcycle bearing number CG04 LK 4122 was hit by a truck bearing number CG14 MG 8700 (hereinafter referred to as “offending truck”) driven by non-applicant No. 1 rashly and negligently near water tank, Risda Basti. In the accident, Jeevanlal suffered to grievous injuries and died while on the way to hospital. Accident was reported to police station Kotwali Baloda Bazar, based on which Crime No. 193/18 was registered against non-applicant No. 1 for alleged offence under Section 279, 337, 304A of IPC.

¶26

Applicants-claimants widow, children and parents of deceased- Jeevanlal, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 1,18,10,000/- pleadings therein that on the date of accident deceased was 42 years old a healthy person. He was doing the work of contractor, an agriculturist and earning ₹ 30,000 per month.

¶27

Respondents No. 1 & 2/ Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 -driver and owner of the offending truck filed their reply to the application, denying the facts pleaded therein. It was further pleaded that the non-applicant No. 1 driver of offending truck was not driving the offending bus rashly and negligently. Happening of accident was due to negligence of driver of motorcycle. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident, non-applicant No. 1 was possessed with valid

¶28

3 / 8

¶29

and effective driving licence and the offending truck was insured by nonapplicant No. 3.

¶30

Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that on the date of accident the offending truck was being plied in breach of policy conditions, driver of the offending truck was not possessed with valid and effective driving licence as also there was no valid permit and fitness certificate.

¶31

Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased -Jeevanlal died because of grievous injuries suffered by him in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending truck driven by non-applicant No. 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy, contributory negligence and nonjoinder of parties were not found to be proved. Tribunal calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 17,50,000/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization and fastened liability jointly and severally upon non-applicants 1 to 3. Being insurer, first liability to satisfy the award upon non-applicant No. 3- Insurance company.

¶32

Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that this appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation on the ground that the income of deceased has been assessed much less than what is pleaded and compensation under the head of other conventional heads is not sufficiently awarded. He would submit that the claimants in the claim application have pleaded income of deceased as ₹ 30,000 per month from the work of contractorship and agricultural income. During trial claimants have also produced relevant documents showing payments being made against the vehicle of the deceased Jeevanlal engaged by ‘Emami

¶33

4 / 8

¶34

Cement’ and payment thereto. Kameshwar Rao, Administrative Officer of the Emami Cement was also examined to prove the said fact. However, Claims Tribunal disbelieved the pleadings of income of deceased and assessed his income notionally as only ₹ 10,000 per month, which is much less than the income which the deceased was earning. He also contended that number of claimants are six including widow, three children, mother and father of deceased, however, Tribunal has awarded compensation under the head of loss of consortium only to claimant No. 1, wife. Children and the parents would also be entitled for the compensation under the head of loss of consortium.

¶35

Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellants-claimants and would submit that the Claims Tribunal justified in recording that the claimants failed to prove income of deceased by producing clinching evidence before the Tribunal. He submits that though the documents produced by the claimants of payment of ₹ 10,00,000 to deceased, however, no document has been filed to show that the deceased was filing income tax returns before the Income Tax Department. It is also contended that the business of transportation and the agricultural work can be managed by any other family member(s) and therefore there is no loss of income from work Travel agent and agricultural work. In absence of proof of income, Claims Tribunal justified in assessing income of the deceased as ₹ 10,000 per month.

¶36

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case.

¶37

So far as the first ground raised by counsel for appellants-claimants with regard to assessment of income of deceased is concerned, the main contention of learned counsel for appellants is that the deceased was giving motor vehicle on lease to Emami Cement against which payments are also

¶38

5 / 8

¶39

being made. Copy of relevant documents in this regard has been filed as Ext. A-21 to 24 and to prove the said documents, claimants have examined Kamehshwar Rao, AW-3. In evidence of AW-3, the Administrative Officer of Emami Cement, he stated that the company has taken one Scorpio vehicle from Jeevanlal bearing number CG04-HW-5286. The vehicle was taken on lease for one year and consolidated amount of ₹ 42,500 per month was paid and further payment is to be made @ ₹ 10 per kilometer. He also proved the documents Ext. A-22 to A-24. Ext. A-22 shows that a payment has been made for hiring of the vehicle Scorpio bearing number CG04-HW-5286 towards Rental Fuel Charges which amounts to ₹ 10,05,000. This invoice is dated 20.06.2017. Details of depositing and use of vehicle has been enclosed as Ext. A-25 which is dated 10.06.2016 till 14.04.2018 which also mentions name of Jeevalal Travels in many of the entries.

¶40

In the aforementioned facts of the case, this Court cannot ignore to take note of the fact that deceased Jeevanlal was owner of the vehicle, the fact remains that he has been shown to be running travel agency. In the documents of the Emami Cement and therefore the business of work as travel agency and giving the vehicle on contract through its agency, in the opinion of this Court is proved. Claimants have also enclosed documents of the agricultural property ie., in the name of deceased, from which it can be ascertained that deceased was having agricultural property in his name. Claims Tribunal assessed income notionally without accepting the evidence brought on record ie., documentary and oral. Tribunal erred in disbelieving the documents prepared and payment made to the deceased by the Emami Cement amounting to ₹ 10,05,000 in the name of deceased. Document also mentions that tax has been deducted at source. Even if the vehicle is not owned by the deceased but he might be having some share on the said amount being a travel agent and also considering that the agricultural property required supervision and therefore the income of deceased is to be

¶41

6 / 8

¶42

assessed considering the aforementioned aspects and the evidence available in record.

¶43

For the purpose of of assessing income of deceased, some guess work is needed, keeping in mind other facts and evidence available in record. Considering all the afore-discussed facts of the case, number of dependents, date of accident ie., 09.04.2018, minimum wages fixed of skilled workers by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as ₹ 9,530 per month for the period from 01.04.2018 to 30.09.2018, I find it appropriate to assess income of deceased as ₹ 18,000 per month ie. ₹ 2,16,000 per annum.

¶44

Deceased on the date of accident was held to be 45 years of age. Tribunal has correctly added 25% of the established income towards future prospects, and applied multiplier of 14 which are to the tune of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . However, the deduction applied by the Tribunal of 1/5 is erroneous in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) . In the said case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where the number of claimants are 4 to 6, there shall be deduction of 1/4 and therefore in the case hand also, as there are six claimants, appropriate deduction will be 1/4 instead of 1/5 as applied by the Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly.

¶45

Claims Tribunal further awarded only ₹ 40,000 to claimant No. 1 towards loss of spousal consortium and ₹ 15,000 towards funeral expenses and ₹ 15,000 towards loss of estate. Award of compensation under the head of loss of consortium is initially specified and quantified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and further has been categorized in the

¶46

7 / 8

¶47

case of Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias

¶48

Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and held that there are three types of consortium ie., loss of spousal consortium to widow/ husband, loss of parental consortium to children and loss of filial consortium to parents of deceased. In the present case, claimants No. 2 to 4 are children and claimants No. 5 & 6 are parents of deceased, therefore, they all are entitled for ₹ 40,000 each, towards loss of parental consortium and loss of filial consortium respectively. It is ordered accordingly.

¶49

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has further observed that compensation under the head of other conventional heads is to be increased by 10% in every three years and therefore amount of compensation under the heads of funeral expenses would be ₹ 16,500, loss of estate would be ₹ 16,500, and loss of consortium would be ₹ 44,000 each.

¶50

For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires re-computation, which is as under.

¶51

Particulars	Compensation
• Annual Loss of income/ dependency = ₹ 2,16,000/- (₹ 18,000x12)	₹ 28,35,000/-
• Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 25% (₹ 2,16,000 + 25% of ₹ 2,16,000 = ₹ 2,70,000)
• Deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses( ₹ 2,70,000x 1/4= ₹ 67,500); ₹ 2,70,000 - ₹ 67,500 = ₹ 2,02,500/- • Multiplier of 14 ₹ 2,02,500 x 14 = ₹ 28,35,000/-
Loss of Spousal Consortium to Appellant No. 1	₹ 44,000/-
Loss of parental consortium to Appellants No. 2 to 4; and Loss of Filial Consortium to Appellants No. 4 & 5 (₹ 44,000 each)	₹ 2,20,000/-
Loss of estate	₹ 16,500/-
Funeral Expenses	₹ 16,500/-
Total	₹ 31,32,000/-

¶52

8 / 8

¶53

Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 31,32,000/- instead of ₹ 17,50,000/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization.

¶54

Any amount paid to the appellants-claimants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above.

¶55

Rest of the conditions as imposed by the Claims Tribunal in the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶56

In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶59

pwn

Smt. Indrani Verma v. Chote Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

Smt. Indrani Verma v. Chote Lal

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

Smt. Gurmeet Kaur Vs Ashok Kumar Sharma

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Padum Patel

Branch Manager, Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs Brihaspati Bai

Smt. Babita Paikra Vs Sachin Dev

Smt. Chandrika Vs Santosh Kumar Ravte

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Indarbati Bai Nishad