Smt. Sondulari Sahu Vs Uttam Kumar Singh Yadav

Dashoda Sahu W/o Narayan Sahu Aged About 50 Years All R/o Village Bareli, Chowki Giroudhpuri, Tahsil - Bilaigarh, District (Revenue And Civil) - Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. Appellant No.2 & 3 minor, through the mother (natural guardian) appellant No.1, Smt. Sondulari Sahu Wd/o Late Jageshwar Sahu Aged About 28 Years

¶11

... Appellants/applicants

¶12

versus

¶13

Uttam Kumar Singh Yadav S/o Shivnath @ Harikrishna Singh Yadav Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Masudi, Police Station - Tashil - Jagdishpur, P.O. Jagdishpur, District Bhojpur Aara (Bihar) At Present - Vedvyas Ward No. 03 Kalunga, Police Station - Kalunga, District - Sundargarh (Odisa), (Driver Of Truck Bearing Vehicle No. O.D. - 14- N – 7723)

¶14

Jai Maa Sheetala Transport Proprietor Dhirendra Diwakar S/o Nagendra Diwakar Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village -

¶15

2

¶16

Kalunga, District Sundergarh Ward No. 03 Police Station - Kalunga (Odisa), (Owner Of Vehicle No. O.D. -14 - N- 7723), District : Sundargarh, Orissa

¶17

Dhirendra Diwakar S/o Nagendra Diwakar Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Kalunga, District Sundergarh Ward No. 03 Police Station - Kalunga (Odisa), (Supurddar Of Vehicle No. O.D. -14 - N- 7723), District : Sundargarh, Orissa

¶18

Branch Manager H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Limited Raurkela District - Raurkela(Odissa) Pin Code - 7723 Branch Office - 3rd Floor Chawla Complex, Devendra Nagar Road ( Sai Nagar Raipur) A. O. C. G. Pin Code 492001 (Insurer Of The Vehicle Bearing Vehicle No. O.D. -14 - N- 7723)

¶19

... Respondent(s)

¶20

For Appellants : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shokie Yadav, Advocate

¶21

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board

¶22

11/06/2025

¶23

Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal challenging the award dated 22.8.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.104/2018 by which learned Claims Tribunal allowed application of appellants in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.16,32,800/- to claimant/appellants herein.

¶24

Facts of the case, in brief, are that appellants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune

¶25

3

¶26

of Rs.36,00,000/- under various heads, for the death of deceased Jageshwar Sahu in a motor vehicular accident. According to claimants, who are widow, children and mother of deceased, on 19.6.2018 at about 4:15 p.m. Jageshwar Sahu along with his daughter Divya Sahu was going to Raigarh on his motorcycle. On the way, opposite Singh Petrol Pump, village Kodatarai, truck bearing registration mark OD14-N-7723, driven in a rash and negligent manner by nonapplicant No.1, dashed the motorcycle and caused accident. In the said accident, Jageshwar Sahu sustained grievous injuries on his dead and died on spot.

¶27

Non-applicant No.1 and 2 filed reply to application denying averments made therein including negligence alleged against non-applicant No.1. They also pleaded that on the date of alleged accident, non-applicant No.1 was having valid and effective driving license, the offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant-Insurance company, therefore, if any compensation is awarded then insurance company is liable to make payment of the same.

¶28

Non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company filed its reply specifically denying averments made in claim application. It was pleaded that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident and therefore principle of contributory negligence is attracted. At the time of accident, driver of offending

¶29

4

¶30

vehicle was not possessing valid license and as such, there was violation of condition of insurance policy and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured.

¶31

Upon appreciating the pleadings and evidence brought on record (oral and documentary both) by the respective parties, the Claims Tribunal arrived at conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1; there was no element of contributory negligence. The Claims Tribunal has allowed the application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.16,32,800/- together with interest @ 9% p.a. and since it was not found that the offending vehicle was plied on road in violation of any of the conditions of insurance policy, the Insurance Company has been held liable to satisfy the impugned award.

¶32

Learned counsel for appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased as Rs.8000/- per month ignoring the pleading made in application that deceased was working as Salesman in M/s Premchand Ramesh Kumar, a proprietary concern dealing in gifts and plastic articles, and getting Rs.13,500/- per month as salary. Document showing registration of proprietary concern with Commercial Tax Department as also Municipal Corporation, Raigarh under the Shop and Establishment Act, 1958 have

¶33

5

¶34

been produced. A certificate to the effect that deceased was getting Rs.13,500/- from the said concern is also submitted. Claimants have also examined Sunny Agrawal (PW-2) and Ramesh Kumar Agrawal (PW-3) to prove the fact that deceased was working as a Salesman in M/s Premchand Ramesh Kumar, Raigarh. He next contended that amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards loss of consortium is not in accordance with law. Hence, he prays that amount of compensation be enhanced suitably.

¶35

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for appellants, submits that the Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of material available in record, has rightly come to the conclusion that claimants failed to prove occupation and income of deceased by adducing cogent and clinching documentary evidence and being so, fixation of income of deceased on notional basis cannot be said to be erroneous.

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶37

Appellants-claimants have pleaded in application that deceased was working as Salesman with M/s Premchand Ramesh Kumar, Raigarh and getting salary of Rs.13500/- per month. In order to prove said pleadings, they have examined Sunny Agrawal (PW-2) and Ramesh Kumar Agrawal (PW-3). Sunny Agrawal (PW-2) is the nephew of Smt. Kusum Devi

¶38

6

¶39

Agrawal, who is proprietor of M/s Premchand Ramesh Kumar, Raigarh, and he has stated that a sum of Rs.13500/- was being paid by his firm to the deceased every month. Ramesh Kumar Agrawal (PW-3), husband of Smt. Kusum Devi Agrawal, has stated that M/s Premchand Ramesh Kumar, Raigarh is registered in the name of his wife Smt. Kusum Devi Agrawal. Prior to 7-8 years of his death, deceased had been working in their firm as a Salesman and salary of Rs.13500/- per month was being paid to him. Claimants have also placed on record a salary certificate (Ex.A-25) issued by Smt. Kusum Devi Agrawal, Proprietor of M/s Premchand Ramesh Kumar, Raigarh certifying that salary of deceased was Rs.13,500/- per month. Registration certificate issued by Municipal Corporation, Raigarh under the Shop and Establishment Act and certificate with TIN number issued in Form-6 by the Commercial Tax Department are also placed on record as Ex.A-A26-C and Ex.A27-C respectively.

¶40

Above oral and documentary evidence available in record clearly depict that the deceased was working as a Salesman in M/s Premchand Ramesh Kumar, Raigarh and his monthly income was Rs.13,500/-. The Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased on notional basis by disbelieving the evidence with regard to nature of employment and income. The Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed

¶41

7

¶42

income of the deceased at Rs.13500/- in stead of Rs.8000/-, which is contrary to the evidence available in record. Hence, the income of deceased is hereby assessed as Rs.13,500/-.

¶43

The deceased was below 40 years and not in permanent job, therefore, addition of 40% of assessed income towards future prospects applied by the Claims Tribunal is in consonance with decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra). In view of the fact that the deceased was survived by five dependent family members, the Claims Tribunal has rightly deducted one-fourth from the income of deceased to assess loss of dependency. Deceased was survived by five dependent family members and therefore, multiplier applied by the Claims Tribunal i.e. 16, is also in consonance with the principles laid down in the matter of Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation & another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein it is observed that the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-fourth where the number of dependent family is 4 to 6.

¶44

The Claims Tribunal has awarded consortium only to widow of deceased i.e. appellant No.1. Whereas, as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Pranay Sethi reported in (2107) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 130, the children and parents

¶45

8

¶46

of deceased are separately entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000/for loss of parental consortium and filial consortium respectively. Therefore the Claims Tribunal should have awarded separate consortium to each appellant herein, meaning thereby should have awarded Rs.2,00,000/- in place of Rs.40,000/- only. Consequently, it is ordered that the appellants, who are widow, children and mother of deceased, total five in number, are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- towards spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium respectively.

¶47

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

¶48

14.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.13,500/- per month and after adding 40% towards future prospects, the monthly income of deceased would come to Rs.18900/- and annual income would be Rs.2,26,800/-. Out of this amount, one-fourth is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased and after deducting one-fourth and applying multiplier of 16, as applied by the Claims Tribunal, total loss of dependency would come to Rs.27,21,600/-. Besides this, appellant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium; appellant No.2 to 4 are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each for parental consortium and appellant No.5 is entitled for Rs.40,000/- for filial consortium,

¶49

9

¶50

as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram (supra). In addition to aforesaid amount, appellants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.29,51,600/- (27,21,600 + 2,00,000 + 30000). This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of application till actual payment is made. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount disbursed to appellant pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted.

¶51

15.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned

¶52

award stands modified to the extent indicated above.

¶53

SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI

¶54

Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶55

roshan/-

Smt. Sondulari Sahu v. Uttam Kumar Singh Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sondulari Sahu v. Uttam Kumar Singh Yadav

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. Tameshwari Kashyap Vs Vinod Kumar Banjare

Aman Kashyap @ Sanju Vs Vinod Kumar Banjare

Smt. Tameshwari Kashyap Vs Vinod Kumar Banjare

Smt. Hembati Sahu Vs Virendra Kumar Sahu

Khaniyalal Ravte Vs Mohit Kumar Yadav

The New India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Sumitra Devi