Smt. Chandani Bai Deewan Vs Raghunandan

¶1

1 / 7

¶2

2025:CGHC:27008

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 411 of 2020

¶6

Smt. Chandani Bai Deewan W/o Late Narendra Deewan, Aged About 22 Years

¶7

Milta Deewan, S/o Late Dhanesh Deewan, Aged About 50 Years

¶8

Smt. Dhanmat Bai Deewan, W/o Milta Deewan, Aged About 45 Years All are R/o Village Charoda, Post Belar, Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.

¶9

--- Appellants/ Claimants

¶10

versus

¶11

Raghunandan S/o Bali Halba, R/o Village Rajim, Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh)....( Non Applicant No. 1 ) ( Driver of Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. CG 04 J 1012)

¶12

Anil Sharma, Address Through Shri Abhishek Agrawal S/o Mohan Agrawal, R/o Lohabada/ Nayapara Rajim, Tahsil and Police Station Rajim, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). (Non Applicant No. 2 ) (Registered Owner of Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. CG 04 J 1012

¶13

The Branch Manager, The Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, 345-347, Third Floor, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)....( Non Applicant No. 3 ) ( Insurer of Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. CG 04 J 1012)

¶14

--- Respondents/ Non-applicants

¶15

____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 & 2 : None. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Adv. on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶17

23/06/2025

¶18

Order On Board

¶19

PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA

¶20

Appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

¶21

1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of

¶22

2 / 7

¶23

compensation, challenging the award dated 11.10.2018 passed by Learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 52/2014, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 9,77,200/- as compensation in motor accidental death case.

¶24

Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that 19.01.2014 at about 8 p.m., Narendra Diwan and Deepak Sinha along with their friend Manish Dhruv were returning from their work to their native village Charoda. On the way, near Kundel Bhata Gungun Dharamkanta on the main road Kundel Chuhiya Marg, non-applicant No. 1/ driver parked his truck no. CG 04 J 1012 in the middle of the road without indicating lights, due to which motorcycle on which Narendra Diwan and Deepak Sinha were travelling collided with the truck and caused accident. In the accident, Narendra Diwan and Deepak Sinha received serious injuries and died on the spot and their friend Manish Dhruv received very serious injuries. The accident was reported in the police station Fingeshwar, based on which Crime No. 10/14 was registered against non-applicant No.1 / driver of truck for alleged offences under Sections 283, 337, 338, 304 (A) IPC.

¶25

Appellants, who are widow and the parents of deceased Narendra Diwan, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 12,10,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was about 25 years of age, was a healthy and able bodied person. At the time of the accident deceased was working as Clerk at Paddy Procurement Centra, Kundelbhata and was earning ₹ 6,000/- per month to support himself and his family.

¶26

3 / 7

¶27

Respondent No. 1 & 2 / Non-applicant No. 1 & 2 -driver and owner of the offending truck did not appear before the Claims Tribunal and they were proceeded ex parte.

¶28

Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim application. Denying all the adverse pleadings made therein, it was further pleaded that the truck was parked on the left side of the road. Its parking light was on and there was sufficient light at the alleged place of accident. The parked truck could be seen from a distance. The alleged accident occurred due to negligent driving of driver of the motorcycle. On the date of accident, more passengers than the prescribed seating capacity were travelling and hence the deceased was also equally responsible for the said accident. The owner of the motor cycle and the insurer are also necessary parties to this case. At the time of accident, non-applicant No.1, did not have a valid and effective driving license.

¶29

Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Narendra Diwan died in the accident arising out of negligent parking of truck on the middle of road without any indication light or signal by its driver- non-applicant No. 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was found to be proved, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 9,77,200/- as total compensation with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application.

¶30

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 occupation of deceased as Clerk in Paddy Procurement Centre. He submits that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded

¶31

4 / 7

¶32

any amount of compensation under the head of loss of filial consortium to appellant No. 2 & 3. 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.

¶33

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3/ Insurance company 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.

¶34

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

¶35

Sofar as the first 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 is assessed by the Tribunal, based on the post mortem report, Ext. P-3 available on record, is 25 years. To prove the nature of occupation and income, claimants have not brought on record any clinching evidence. Claimants in their claim application have pleaded income of deceased as ₹ 6,000/- per month. Date of accident is 19.01.2014. Even if the claimants failed to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence then 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 have taken 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 to suggest prevailing wage structure of the

¶36

5 / 7

¶37

place/ 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.

¶38

In the aforementioned facts of the case, income of deceased assessed by the Claims Tribunal as ₹ 4,500/- 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 under the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act for the period from 01.10.2013 to 31.03.2014 of unskilled labourer ie., ₹ 5,617/- per month. Accordingly, income of deceased is assessed as ₹ 5,617/- per month.

¶39

Sofar as the second ground raised with respect to award of compensation under the head of loss of consortium is concerned, 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 has explained the types of consortium ie.. spousal consortium to husband/ widow, parental consortium to children and filial consortium to parents of the deceased. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded ₹ 40,000/- towards loss of consortium to appellant No.1 widow of deceased only, however, fell into error in not awarding any amount towards loss of consortium to appellants No. 2 & 3/ parents of the deceased. They are also entitled for ₹ 40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium. It is ordered accordingly. Further the Claims Tribunal has rightly applied deduction of 1/3 which is to the tune 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 . Tribunal has also rightly applied multiplier of 18 as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Addition of 40% of the assessed income to the income of deceased towards loss of future prospects and the amount of

¶40

6 / 7

¶41

compensation under the head of funeral expenses and loss of estate are also correct which are 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 .

¶42

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

¶43

Monthly income of deceased is taken as ₹ 5,617/- ie., yearly income as ₹ 67,404/-. Upon adding 40% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects, total yearly income of deceased on the date of accident will come to ₹ ₹ 94,366/- . After deducting 1/3 towards personal and living expenses, annual loss of dependency will come to ₹ 62,911/-. Upon applying multiplier of 18, total loss of dependency will come to ₹ 11,32,398/-. Besides the amount of compensation towards loss of dependency, appellants-claimants shall further be entitled for compensation of ₹ 40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium to appellant No. 1, ₹ 40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium to appellants No. 2 & 3, ₹ 15,000/- towards loss of estate and ₹ 15,000/- towards funeral expenses.

¶44

Particulars	Compensation
A) Annual Loss of income/ dependency = ₹67,404/- (₹5617x12)	₹11,32,398/-
B) Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 40% (₹67,404 + 40% of₹67,404 =₹94,366)
C) Deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses ( ₹94,366 x 1/3=₹31,455);₹94,366 - ₹31,455 =₹62,911/-
D) Multiplier of 18
₹62,911 x 18= ₹11,32,398/-
Loss ofSpousalConsortiumtoAppellantNo. 1	₹ 40,000/-
Loss of filial consortium to Appellants No. 2 & 3 (₹ 40,000 each)	₹ 80,000/-
Loss of estate	₹ 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses	₹ 15,000/-
Total	₹ 12,82,398/-

¶45

7 / 7

¶46

Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 12,82,398/- instead of ₹ 9,77,200/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 7.5% 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.

¶47

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

¶48

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶49

pwn

Smt. Chandani Bai Deewan v. Raghunandan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Chandani Bai Deewan v. Raghunandan

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 Cholamandlam General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Sunita Sahu

Smt. Rani Kori Vs Vijay Kumar Vastrakar

Deepak Vs Sushil Yadav

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Dujram Lahre

Dr. Smt. Rajat Toppo Vs Amardeep Kujur

Vijendra Lal Sahu Vs Narendra Singh