Smt. Aam Bai Vs Atma Ram Sahu

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:29719

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 428 of 2019

¶6

Smt. Aam Bai W/o Late Kacharu Ram Patel Aged About 50 Years Caste Marar, R/o Village Hatkara, Police Station Korar, District - Kanker Chhattisgarh.

¶7

Kumari Rukhmani D/o Late Kacharu Ram Patel Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Aam Bai (Appellant No.1), Caste Marar, R/o Village Hatkara, Police Station Korar, District - Kanker Chhattisgarh. ---(Claimants)

¶8

... Appellants-claimants

¶9

versus

¶10

Atma Ram Sahu S/o Dular Ram Sahu R/o Shankardah, Dhamtari, Police Station Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ---(Driver And Owner Of Offending Vehicle),

¶11

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Shop No. 01, Mandi Complex Kanker, Police Station Kanker, District - Kanker (CG). ---(Insurer Of Offending Vehicle),

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

For Appellant : Mr. P.K. Dhurundhar, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : None For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board

¶15

2/7/2025

¶16

This miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) has been

¶17

2

¶18

preferred on behalf of appellants-claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Bastar, Kanker (CG) (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 14.1.2019 in Claim Case No.79/2018.

¶19

Appellants-claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.19,56,072/- under various heads, pleading that on 27.6.2018 at about 2:30 p.m. while Kachruram Patel was returning to village Haatkarra on his TVS Excel Moped, the truck bearing registration number CG17-H-1025, driven in a rash and negligent manner by non-applicant No.1-driver, dashed him and caused accident. In the said accident, his head and right hand was crushed as a result he died on the spot. It was pleaded by claimants that at the time of accident, deceased was 60 years, running shop in name of Manokamna Sweets and Restaurant, Kanker and earning Rs.20,000/- per month.

¶20

Application filed by claimants was resisted by non-applicant No.1 on the ground that he was driving the offending vehicle cautiously at a moderate speed. All of sudden deceased came in front of offending vehicle and collided with it. Offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.2, none of the conditions of policy is violated, therefore, if any

¶21

3

¶22

compensation is awarded to claimants, the Insurance

¶23

Company is liable to make payment of the same.

¶24

Non-applicant No.2- Insurance Company also filed reply denying the averments made in application. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, driver of offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license; there was no valid permit and thus the offending vehicle was being plied on road in violation of conditions of insurance policy and as such, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured.

¶25

Learned Claims Tribunal upon analyzing the evidence led by the respective parties, allowed the application of claimants in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.4,26,400/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.

¶26

Learned counsel for appellants submits that the income of deceased as assessed by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side. He next contended that learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount towards loss of consortium to appellant No.2 who is daughter of deceased. Therefore, he prays that amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 opposes the submissions of learned counsel for appellants and submit that the Claims Tribunal has awarded just and

¶28

4

¶29

proper compensation which does not call for any interference.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of claim case including impugned award.

¶31

So far as assessment of income of appellant is concerned, from the contents of claim application and evidence of appellants, it can be seen that the appellants have stated that at the time of accident, deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by running a sweets shop and restaurant. However, the Claims Tribunal disbelieved said version of claimants by recording that they failed to prove the occupation and income of deceased by placing cogent and clinching documentary evidence in that regard and proceeded to assess income of deceased on notional basis. The approach adopted by the Claims Tribunal for assessing monthly income of the deceased cannot be faulted with. However, looking to the wage rate fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the period during which accident occurred and for the area where deceased was residing, fixation of Rs.4,500/- as monthly income of deceased appears to be on lower side. Accident occurred on 27.6.2018 and deceased was resident of District Kanker. On the date of accident, wage rate of an unskilled labourer of District Kanker, which is a 'C' Grade city, prescribed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was Rs.79,30/- per month. Thus, I find it

¶32

5

¶33

appropriate to fix monthly income of the deceased as Rs.7,930/- in place of Rs.4,500/- as assessed by the Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly.

¶34

10.The Claims Tribunal has rightly made addition of 10% towards loss of future prospects; one-third deduction towards personal and living expenses of deceased and applied multiplier of 9. But, the Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium to appellant No.1-wife, which in the opinion of this Court is not in consonance with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 130, wherein it was held that the children of the victim who died in a road accident are also entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- towards parental consortium. Hence, it is ordered that appellant No.2-daughter of deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- for loss of parental consortium.

¶35

11.In view of the above, the compensation payable to appellantsclaimants requires to be recalculated. Accordingly, the income of deceased is taken as Rs.7,930/- and after adding 10% towards future prospects, monthly income comes to Rs.8,723/- and annual income comes to Rs.1,04,676/- Out of this, one-third is to be deducted towards personal expenses of deceased and after deducting one-third, annual

¶36

6

¶37

dependency would come to Rs.69,784/-. Applying multiplier of 9, as applied by Claims Tribunal, the loss of dependency would be Rs.6,28,056/-. Besides this, appellants being widow and children of the deceased are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards spousal consortium and parental consortium respectively. 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 is enhanced to Rs.7,38,056/(6,28,056 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 15,000+ 15,000). This amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization . Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount disbursed to appellants pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted.

¶38

Digitally SYED signed by ROSHAN SYED ZAMIR ROSHAN ALI ZAMIR ALI

¶39

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

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶42

roshan/

Smt. Aam Bai v. Atma Ram Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Aam Bai v. Atma Ram Sahu

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

Icici Lumbard General Insurance Company Limited Vs Pramod Yadav

Smt. Shyamta Bai Sonwani Vs Santosh Kumar

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Abdul Hafiz

Revaram Sonkar Vs Bhagbali Patre

Branch Manager, Vs Batni

Jaiky Jhariya Vs Siddhu @ Sadaram Nishad