Charan Xalxo Vs Santosh Shah

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:23764

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 413 of 2019

¶6

1 - Charan Xalxo S/o Late Tussuram Aged About 55 Years R/o Junapara, Police Station Charchha, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh.

¶7

2 - Smt. Santri W/o Charan Xalxo Aged About 45 Years R/o Junapara, Police Station Charchha, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh.

¶8

3 - Manisha Xalxo D/o Charan Xalxo Aged About 17 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Father Charan Xalxo, R/o Junapara, Police Station Charchha, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh.

¶9

4 - Amisha Xalxo D/o Charan Xalxo Aged About 14 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Father Charan Xalxo, R/o Junapara, Police Station Charchha, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh.

¶10

5 - Justin Xalxo S/o Charan Xalxo Aged About 7 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Father Charan Xalxo, R/o Junapara, Police Station Charchha, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh. (Claimants)*

¶11

... Applicants

¶12

Versus

¶13

1 - Santosh Shah S/o Shambhu Shah Aged About 45 Years R/o Block No. 1, Ward No. 12, Dola, Rajnagar, Police Station Bijuri, Tahsil Kotma, District Anuppur Madhya Pradesh. (Owner Of Truck Bearing Resistration No. M.P. 65-G.A. - 0660)

¶14

2 - Aman Singh S/o Prem Singh Aged About 24 Years R/o Paradol, Police Station Jhagrakhand, District Korea Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Truck Bearing Registration No. M.P. -65-G.A. - 0660)

¶15

2

¶16

3 - Branch Manager Chola Mandalam, M.S. General Insurance Company, Branch Bhopal Madhya Pradesh. (Insurer Of Truck Bearing Registration No. M.P.-65-G.A. - 0660)

¶17

4 - Collector Korea, Baikunthpur District Korea Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Govt. Mahindra Vehicle Bearing No. C.G. - 02-1996), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

¶18

5 - Jai Kishore Singh S/o Manmohan Singh, R/o New Ledri, Police Station Jhagrakhand, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Govt. Mahindra Vehicle Bearing No. C.G. - 02-1996)

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

For Appellants : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Ms. Priyanka Mehta, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Shristi Upadhyay, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Government

¶21

Advocate

¶22

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶23

Order On Board

¶24

13/06/2025

¶25

This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 14.11.2018 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, District – Korea (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 05/2016.

¶26

Facts of the case in brief are that, on 16.12.2015 at about 07:00 P.M., the offending vehicles i.e Truck bearing registration no. MP 65 GA 0660 and Mahindra Jeep bearing registration no. CG 02 1996 which was being driven by the Respondents No. 2 & 5 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of Shaship Xalxo and caused accident. In the said accident, Shaship Xalxo suffered serious injuries and and

¶27

SHUBHAM DEY he succumbed to his injuries on the spot.

¶28

Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY

¶29

3

¶30

Learned counsel for appellant submits that the motor vehicular accident as pleaded and the death of deceased Shaship Xalxo due to the motor accidental injuries suffered is not in dispute. He contended that the claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation which was allowed in part by the learned Claims Tribunal. The award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is not put to challenge by the NonApplicant/Respondents herein and therefore, the liability to pay the amount of compensation as held by the learned Claims Tribunal has attained finality.

¶31

The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal challenging the impugned award on the ground of quantum. Learned Claims Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month only, has assessed the compensation and further, the amount of compensation awarded on other conventional heads is also on lower side. It is contention of counsel for the appellant/claimants that the claimants have specifically pleaded that the deceased was aged about 20 years on the date of accident, he was working as Mason and thereby, earning Rs. 10,500/- per month. The learned Claims Tribunal has disbelieved the occupation and income as pleaded in the claim application erroneously. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 70,000/- as lump sum on other conventional heads which is erroneous. The appellants are also entitled for the amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram , reported in (2018) 8 SCC. Hence, the compensation awarded be enhanced suitably.

¶32

4

¶33

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective respondents opposes the submission of counsel for the appellants/claimants and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that the appellants/claimants failed to prove the nature of occupation and the income of the deceased and has rightly assessed the income of the decease on notional basis. The amount of compensation awarded is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶34

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case and the copy of the award passed.

¶35

Perusal of the claim application would show that the application is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 pleading therein, that the deceased was working as Mason and earning Rs. 10,500/-. To prove the pleadings made in the claim application, the claimants have examined Smt. Santri Bai, Applicant No. 2 as AW – 1, Shyamjeet is examined as AW – 2 to prove the happening of the accident. The claimants, to prove the nature of occupation and income of the deceased has not examined any other independent witness nor have submitted any documents, but for the self-serving statement of the mother of the deceased AW-1.

¶36

In the aforementioned facts of the case, the learned Claims Tribunal justified in coming to the conclusion that the nature of occupation and income of the deceased as pleaded by the claimants could not be proved by clinching evidence and have decided to assess the income of the deceased on notional basis. For the purpose of assessing the income of a person/deceased on notional basis, the Tribunal/Courts are required to keep in mind the age of the deceased, cost of living,

¶37

5

¶38

price index, wage structure prevailing and can also take the help of the minimum-wages as fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

¶39

The learned Claims Tribunal on the guess work has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month, which in the opinion of this Court, in view of the minimum-wages fixed by the competent authority prevailing under the State is on lower side. The learned Claims Tribunal ought to have also considered the minimum-wages fixed by the competent authority and prevailing within the State on the date of accident. Perusal of the notification issued for the period from 01.10.2015 to 31.03.2016, it is apparent that the minimum-wages fixed for ‘Unskilled Labourer’ is mentioned as Rs. 5,860/- per month. I find it appropriate to take the help of the minimum-wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and assess the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month. It is ordered accordingly.

¶40

The learned Claims Tribunal have applied the deduction of ½ towards the personal and living expenses and applied multiplier of 18 which in the facts and circumstances of the case and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 is correct. The learned Claims Tribunal has rightly added 40% of the assessed income towards the future prospect which is also correct in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.

¶41

6

¶42

The learned Claims Tribunal apart from the loss of dependency has awarded consolidated amount of Rs. 70,000/- towards the assessed compensation without specifying the heads. In the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in case of death, the claimants are entitled for Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 40,000/- for loss of consortium. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nanu Ram (Supra) has further explained the types of consortium and held that there are three types of consortium i.e. spousal consortium for wife/husband, parental consortium to children and filial consortium to parents. In the case at hand, the Appellants No. 1 & 2/Applicants No. 1 & 2 are parents and therefore, they are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium (total Rs. 80,000/-).

¶43

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

¶44

Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.6,000/- and since at the time of death, the deceased was 20 years old, therefore, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) , the income of deceased is required to be enhanced by 40% towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.8400/(6000+2400). Thus annual income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the compensation comes to Rs.1,00,800/- (8400 x 12). Out of this amount, 50% is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and after deducting 50% of the annual income, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.50,400/(1,00,800 – 50,400). By applying multiplier of 18, as applied by the Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency, the total loss of

¶45

7

¶46

dependency would come to Rs.9,07,200/- (50,400 x 18). Besides this, Appellants No. 1 & 2 are entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards filial consortium, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Magma General Insurance (Supra) . Further, they are also entitled for Rs. 15,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.10,17,200/- (9,07,200 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000). This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶47

Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants No. 1 to 5 as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above.

¶48

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

¶49

Certified copy as per rules.

¶50

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶51

Dey

Charan Xalxo v. Santosh Shah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charan Xalxo v. Santosh Shah

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

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Smt.Kaushilya Bai

Dhaleshwar Vs Vishnu Das

Smt. S. Laxmi Vs Ravikant Sharma

Kirtan Rana Vs Mukesh Ram

Santdeen Pahadi Vs Jugnath Yadav

Branch Manager Vs Smt. Lalita Thakur