Ku. Nishtha Pandey Vs Joji Babu Ji

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 390 of 2019

¶5

1 - Ku. Nishtha Pandey W/o Late Shri Dinesh Kumar Pandey Aged About 10 Years Minor Through His Grand Father Chhedilal Pandey S/o Late Shri Dayaram Pandey Aged About 73 Years

¶6

2 - Chhedilal Pandey S/o Late Shri Dayaram Pandey Aged About 73 Years Occupation Retired Employee

¶7

3 - Smt. Shakun Pandey W/o Shri Chhedilal Pandey Aged About 63 Years Occupation Housewife , All are R/o Village Parsuram Ward No. 16, Bemetara, Police Station And Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.

¶8

--- Appellants

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Joji Babu Ji S/o Shri Jems Aged About 36 Years Caste Mala R/o 623 Guntu Palli Ibrahim Patnam Mandal Ibrahim Patnam ,district Krishna (Andhra Pradesh ) (Driver Of Truck No. M.P. 16/t.C. 1517),

¶11

2 - Immanaini Bujji S /o Late Shri Immanaini Etwaiya Aged About 54 Years R/o D.N. M.I.G. 35/1 A.P.H.B. Colony Bhawanipuram Vijyawada Anadhra Pradesh (Owner Of Truck No. M.P. 16/t.C. 1517

¶12

3 - The New India Insurance Company Limted Vijyawada Andhra Pradesh Through The Branch Manager First Floor, Chouhan State G.E. Road Supela Bhilai Durg Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Truck No. M.P. 16/t.C.-1517)

¶13

--- Respondents

¶14

For Appellants : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Ashish Kumar Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.N. Nandey, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶16

Order On Board

¶17

07/07/2025

¶18

Digitally signed byBALRAM BALRAMPRASAD PRASADDEWANGAN DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.18 10:20:12 +0530

¶19

Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident

¶20

2

¶21

Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 09.10.2018 passed in Claim Case No.12/2016 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.33,58,192/- as compensation in a death case.

¶22

Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that a claim application U/s. 166 of the Act, 1988 was filed by the appellants/claimants being the legal representative of the deceased Dinesh Pandey stating that on 27.11.2015, non-applicant No.1, while driving the offending truck bearing registration No. AP-16-TC-1517 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the Swift car bearing registration No. CG-25-C-0770, which was being driven by Vijit Pandey. At the time of the accident, Dinesh Pandey, Girdhar Patel, and Ganesh Thakur were travelling in the car. As a result of the accident, all of them died on the spot. It was pleaded that deceased Dinesh Pandey was a 29 years old young man, who was working as a driver in the Government District Hospital, Bemetara and getting monthly salary of Rs.17,126. The claimants were dependent upon the deceased and due to his untimely death, they are facing great financial crises.

¶23

Non-applicants No.1 and 2 remained exparte and no reply was filed on their behalf. Non-applicant No.3 filed its reply to the claim application and denied the pleading made therein. It was pleaded that accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the car. It was pleaded that non-applicant No.1 was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle and there was breach of conditions of insurance policy.

¶24

3

¶25

The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleadings and the evidence brought on record by the respective parties, allowed the claim application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.33,58,192/- and fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company to indemnify the insured.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this appeal is filed seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the learned Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.70,000/- only under other conventional head, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/towards loss of love and affection to applicant No.1, Rs.15,000/towards loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- towards funeral expenses. Learned Claims Tribunal fell into error in not awarding any amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium to the appellants. She submits that computation of compensation under the head of loss of dependency is correct. Hence, the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced.

¶27

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is on proper appreciation of facts and evidence available on record, which does not call for any interference.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record.

¶29

To appreciate the submission of learned counsel for appellants, perused copy of the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. The

¶30

4

¶31

learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection .

¶32

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , has quantified the amount of compensation to be awarded under the head loss estate and funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/- each and Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium in a death case.

¶33

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 has explained the types of consortium and held that there are three types of loss of consortium i.e. loss of spousal consortium for widow/widower, loss of parental consortium to the children and loss of filial consortium to parents. The appellant No.1 is daughter and appellant No.2 & 3 are parents of deceased, therefore, the appellant No.1 is entitled for parental consortium and appellant No.2 & 3 are entitled for filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. Applicant/appellant No.1 shall not be entitled for compensation under the head of love and affection as it subsumes under the head of loss of consortium.

¶34

As the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- towards funeral expenses, which is not sustainable and is required to be reduced to Rs.15,000/- as per the decision in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) . It is ordered accordingly. Learned Claims Tribunal is justified in awarding an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, hence, it is affirmed. The compensation assessed and awarded by the learned

¶35

5

¶36

Claims Tribunal towards loss of dependency is not disputed by learned counsel for respective parties, hence it is affirmed.

¶37

For the forgoing discussions the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellants required recomputation, which is as under :-

¶38

SN	Head		Amount(in Rs.).
1.	Loss of dependency	:	32,88,192.00
2.	For loss of consortium to the appellants No.1 to 3 (parental and filial) Rs.40,000/- each (40,000 x 3 = 1,20,000/-.	:	1,20,000.00
3.	For funeral expenses	:	15,000.00
4.	For loss of estate	:	15,000.00
	Total Compensation	:	34,38,192.00

¶39

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.34,38,192.00. Any amount paid to the appellants as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶40

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

¶41

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶42

Balram

Ku. Nishtha Pandey v. Joji Babu Ji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku. Nishtha Pandey v. Joji Babu Ji

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

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Uttara Kashyap

Ku. Manisha Kishan Vs Kamal Jangde

Purssottam Singh Dhurvey Vs Mahendra Kumar

Bhukhan Lal Vishwakarma Vs Hulas Sahu

Kartikram Sahu Vs Durgeshwar Nayak

Smt. Sumitra Thakur Vs Joji Babu Ji