Ajay Kumar Singh Vs Prateek Choubey

Prateek Choubey S/o N.S. Choubey, Aged About 24 Years R/o Qr. No. 7A Street No. 9, Sector-10 Bhilai Nagar, P.S. Sector-6, Kotwali Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh................( Driver)

¶16

Naveen Shankar Choubey S/o Late U.S. Choubey, Aged About 55 Years Qr. No. 7A Street No. 9, Sector-10, Bhilai Nagar, P.S. Sector-6, Kotwali Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg Chhattisgarh...............( Owner )

¶17

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Station Road, Near Ujala Bhawan, Near Prakash Complex, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh................( Insurer )

¶18

--- Respondents

¶19

____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Tanmay Choudhary, Adv. on behalf of Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : None appeared, though served. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate

¶20

PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA

¶21

2 / 7

¶22

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶23

Order On Board

¶24

27/06/2025

¶25

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 11.11.2019 passed by Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 311/2016, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 7,44,980/- as compensation in motor accidental death case.

¶26

Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 12.03.2016 at about 05:30 p.m. in the evening when Smt. Pushpa Singh along with her daughters Shreya and Anjali was standing near Gidhoudi Hospital, Khursipar, G.E. Road, Bhilai to catch an autorickshaw, at the same time, one Alto Car bearing No. CG07/4888 coming from Raipur, driven by Non-applicant No. 1 rashly and negligently dashed Smt. Pushpa Singh from behind and caused accident. In the said accident, she suffered grievous injuries over her person and died during course of treatment on 18.03.2016. On the basis of information of accident, Crime No. 99/2016 was registered against nonapplicant No. 1/ driver of Alto car for alleged offence under Sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC.

¶27

Appellants, who are husband, children and parents-in-law of deceased Smt. Pushpa Singh, filed an application under Section 166, 140 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 47,32,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was about 42 years of age, was an able bodied person. Before the accident she was doing tailoring work and also giving tution

¶28

3 / 7

¶29

classes to the primary school students, from which she was earning ₹ 12,000/- per month to support herself and her family.

¶30

Respondent No. 1 & 2 / Non-applicant No. 1 & 2 -driver and owner of the offending Alto car submitted their reply to the claim application, while denying adverse pleadings made therein, it was further pleaded that the alleged accident did not happen from the car owned by non-applicant No. 2. On the date of alleged accident, non-applicant no. 1/ Pratik Choubey's left leg was plastered due to fracture from ankle to knee. His left leg came under the truck coming from behind and he was seriously injured. Due to multiple fractures in the left leg, plaster was applied for 02 months. Pratik Choubey was bedridden. So the question of him driving a car does not arise.

¶31

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 said accident happened due to the negligence of the deceased. At the time of accident, deceased was crossing four-lane road from wrong place. On the date of accident, driver of offending car was not possessed with valid and effective driving licence, thus there was breach of policy conditions.

¶32

Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Smt. Pushpa Singh died in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending Alto Car driven by non-applicant No. 1. Contributory negligence and Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 7,44,980/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application and fastened primary liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance company.

¶33

4 / 7

¶34

Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as ₹ 4,500/per month only, overlooking the pleadings, nature of occupation and income of deceased as pleaded in the claim application. He next contended that the Claims Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3 instead of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses as there are six claimants. Claims Tribunal has awarded loss of consortium to appellant No. 1 only and not to others who are children and parents of deceased. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130.

¶35

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the claimants failed to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence, the Tribunal justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. The amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference.

¶36

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record.

¶37

Sofar as the ground raised by learned counsel for appellants-claimants with respect to assessment of income of deceased is concerned, on the date of accident age of deceased assessed by the Tribunal based on the documents available in record is 45 years. To prove the nature of occupation and income, claimants have not brought on record documentary evidence nor any admissible piece of evidence. Claimants in their claim application have pleaded income of deceased as ₹ 12,000/- per month. Date of accident is 12.03.2016. Even if the claimants failed to prove nature of occupation and

¶38

5 / 7

¶39

income of deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence then also the Tribunal ought to have assessed income of deceased on notional basis keeping in mind age of deceased, date of accident, price index, cost of living, wage structure prevailing and may also take help of minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. In the case at hand, as there is no evidence with respect to prevailing wage structure of the area where the deceased was residing and working, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, Tribunal ought to have taken help of minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act.

¶40

In the aforementioned facts of the case, income of deceased assessed by the Claims Tribunal as ₹ 4500/- per month is much less than what is fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act. Accordingly, I find it appropriate to assess the income of deceased on notional basis keeping in mind the minimum wages fixed in the notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act during the period from 01.10.2015 to 31.03.2016 for unskilled labourer ie., ₹ 5,860/- per month. Therefore, I find it appropriate to assess income of deceased as ₹ 5,860/- per month. It is ordered accordingly.

¶41

Perusal of impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal has applied deduction of 1/3 which in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 is not correct. According to the said decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court issued guidelines specifying that, where number of claimants are 4 to 6, there shall be deduction of 1/4. As in the case at hand, there are six claimants, therefore, deduction of 1/4 will apply. Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 14 considering the age of deceased on the date of accident to be 45 years which is in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) . Claims Tribunal has

¶42

6 / 7

¶43

further rightly added 25% of the assessed income towards loss of future prospects and further awarded ₹ 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and ₹ 15,000/- towards loss of estate which are also in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported i n (2017) 16 SCC 680 . However, learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards loss of consortium to all the claimants except appellant No. 1. Award of compensation under the head of loss of consortium has been explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the types of consortium ie., spousal consortium to husband/ widow, parental consortium to children and filial consortium to parents of the deceased. In the case at hand, appellant no. 1 is husband of deceased, appellant no. 2 to 4 are children and appellant no,. 4 & 6 are parents of deceased and therefore they are also entitled for ₹ 40,000/- each towards loss of consortium. It is ordered accordingly.

¶44

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

¶45

The monthly income of deceased is taken as ₹ 5,860/- ie., yearly income as ₹ 70,320/-. Upon adding 25% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects, yearly income of deceased will come to ₹ ₹ 87,900/- . After deducting 1/4 towards personal and living expenses, annual loss of dependency will come to ₹ 65,925/-. Upon applying multiplier of 14, total loss of dependency will come to ₹ 9,22,950/-. Appellants-claimants shall further be entitled for ₹ 40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium to appellant No. 1, ₹ 40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium to appellants No. 2 to 4 and ₹ 40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium to appellants No. 4 & 5. Besides the amount of compensation towards loss of dependency, appellants-claimants shall further be entitled for ₹ 15,000/- towards loss of estate and ₹ 15,000/- towards funeral expenses.

¶46

7 / 7

¶47

Particulars	Compensation
A) Annual Loss of income/ dependency = ₹70,320/- (₹5860x12)	₹9,22,950/-
B) Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 25% (₹70,320 x 125% =₹87,900)
C) Deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses ( ₹ 87,900x 1/4=₹21,975; ₹ 87,900- ₹ 21,975 = ₹ 65,925) D) Multiplier of 14 ₹65,925 x 14 =₹9,22,950/-
Loss of spousal consortium to appellant No. 1	₹ 40,000/-
Loss of parental consortium to Appellant No. 2 to 4 (₹ 40,000/- each)	₹ 1,20,000/-
Loss of filial consortium to appellants No. 5 & 6	₹ 80,000/-
Loss of estate	₹ 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses	₹ 15,000/-
Total	₹ 11,92,950/-

¶48

Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation

¶49

of ₹ 11,92,950/- instead of ₹ 7,44,980/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount paid to the appellants-claimants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶50

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

¶51

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶52

pwn

Ajay Kumar Singh v. Prateek Choubey

Case brief

What is this about?

Ajay Kumar Singh v. Prateek Choubey

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

Branch Manager Vs Smt. Preeti Singh

Jovakim Tirkey Vs Dr. Laxmi Narayan Patel

Akhilendra Pratap Singh Vs Monu Chouhan

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Rannu Tripathi

Mitesh Soni Vs Sher Singh Khela

Smt. Purnima Yadav Vs Mohan Das