Shanti Bai Gendle Vs Chandrabhan Yadav

¶1

1 / 8

¶2

2025:CGHC:38258

¶3

NAFR

¶4

PAWAN KUMAR JHA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGRH AT BILASPUR Digitally signed by PAWANKUMAR JHA MAC No. 443 of 2019

¶5

Shanti Bai Gendle W/o Late Vishal Singh Gendle Aged About 43 Years W/o Late Vishal Singh Gendle, R/o Near Kali Mandir, Tifra, Police Station-Sirgitti, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

--- Appellant/ Claimant

¶7

versus

¶8

Chandrabhan Yadav S/o Santosh Yadav Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Bartori, Police Station-Bilha, Tahsil Bilha, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Devbutt Yadav S/o Santosh Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Bartori, Police Station-Bilha, Tahsil Bilha, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, Second Floor, V.R. Plaza, Link Road Bilaspur, Tahsil And DistrictBilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

--- Respondents

¶12

WITH

¶13

MAC No. 448 of 2019

¶14

Shanti Bai Gendle W/o Late Vishal Singh Gendle Aged About 43 Years

¶15

Manish Gendle S/o Late Vishal Singh Gendle Aged About 20 Years

¶16

Manjeet Kumar Gendle S/o Late Vishal Singh Gendle Aged About 17 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Smt. Shanti Bai Gendle

¶17

Satyendra Kumar Gendle S/o Late Vishal Singh Gendle, Aged About 15 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Smt. Shanti Bai Gendle

¶18

All are R/o Near Kali Mandir, Tifra, Police Station - Sirgitti, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶19

--- Appellants/applicants-claimants

¶20

Versus

¶21

Chandrabhan Yadav S/o Santosh Yadav Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Bartori, Police Station-Bilha, Tahsil Bilha, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶22

Devbutt Yadav S/o Santosh Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Bartori, Police Station-Bilha, Tahsil Bilha, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶23

2 / 8

¶24

I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited through the Branch Manager, Second Floor, V.R. Plaza, Link Road Bilaspur, Tahsil And DistrictBilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶25

--- Respondents

¶26

____________________________________________________________ For Appellants-Claimants : Ms. Pranoti Das, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate

¶27

For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate

¶28

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board

¶29

04/08/2025

¶30

Heard.

¶31

Notice sent to Respondents No. 1 and 2 is reported to be served. Notice upon Respondent No. 2 was served upon him, however, there is no representation on his behalf.

¶32

Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that considering the breach of conditions insurance policy as the driver was not having licence to drive the offending vehicle, Claims Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company, however issued direction to Respondent No. 3-Insurance company to first pay the amount of compensation and thereafter to recover the same. Ld. counsel for the parties submit that they have not received notice of appeal, if any filed by the owner of offending vehicle, hence, these appeals be heard at motion stage.

¶33

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties, appeals being filed in the year 2019, admitted on 28.02.2019, notice was sent to respondents on 14.03.2019 which is reported to be served, I find it appropriate to hear the appeals finally at motion stage.

¶34

Challenge in these appeals is to the impugned awards dated 17.09.2018 passed by Learned Ninth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

¶35

3 / 8

¶36

Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Cases No. 677/2017 & 676/2017, whereby Claims Tribunal allowed the applications filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) by the applicants in part and awarded ₹ 39,000 in motor accidental injury case and ₹12,76,153 in death case respectively as total compensation.

¶37

MAC No. 443 of 2019 is filed by claimant seeking enhancement of amount of compensation of ₹ 39,000 awarded by the Claims Tribunal in an injury case. And, MAC No. 448 of 2019 is filed by claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation of ₹ 12,76,153 awarded in death case. As these appeals are filed seeking enhancement of compensation, I am not adverting to the facts of the case as pleaded in the claim application, reply filed by the non-applicants therein, and discussed by Tribunal in impugned award, however, only considering the submission made by the counsel for the respective parties in these appeals on enhancement of compensation.

¶38

In MAC No. 443 of 2019

¶39

Learned counsel for appellant/claimant-Smt. Shanti Bai Gendle would submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager sum of compensation towards loss of income, conveyance expenses, special diet, pain & suffering and attendant in the facts of the case. She contended that the appellant suffered fracture injury over her left hand, however, Claims Tribunal has awarded loss of income for the period of 02 months only which is much less and the compensation awarded of ₹ 5,000 towards pain and suffering is also on lower side and prays for suitable enhancement of compensation.

¶40

4 / 8

¶41

Learned counsel for Respondent No. 4/ Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case has awarded just and proper compensation which does not call for any interference.

¶42

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

¶43

Perusal of MLC report filed by claimant before the Claims Tribunal as Ext. P-4 would show that claimant suffered fracture injury of distal radius (left). No other medical prescription is filed by claimant to show that the fracture injuries as suffered by the claimant has caused any complication or disability.

¶44

In the aforementioned facts of the case, Claims Tribunal has not erred in taking view for awarding compensation for loss of income for two months, however, Tribunal erred in assessing income of appellant as ₹ 6,000 per month only. Claims Tribunal has held that the claimant could not proved the income as pleaded by placing admissible piece of evidence, however, failed to take note of the factors like age of deceased, date of accident, cost of living, price index and wages prevailing on the date of accident ie.,of the year 2017, in the area of which claimant is residing and has not considered minimum wages fixed by the competent authority for the unskilled, semi skilled and skilled labourer.

¶45

As there is no suggestive evidence in record to arrive at a conclusion with regard to daily wages of the labourers prevailing in the area where the claimant is a resident of, therefore, I find it appropriate to take help of minimum wages fixed by the competent authority and prevailing within the State of Chhattisgarh. The accident was occurred on 07.08.2017, claimant is a resident of Tifra, Bilaspur, and as per the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, minimum wages

¶46

5 / 8

¶47

fixed for the period from 01.04.2017 till 30.09.2017 for unskilled labourer of C-Zone area is ₹ 7,800/- per month. Therefore, I find it appropriate to assess income of appellant as ₹ 7,800 per month. It is ordered accordingly.

¶48

Claims Tribunal awarded ₹ 7,000 towards medical expenses. Learned counsel for applicant-claimant during course of argument could not able to point out that the claimant expended more amount against medical expenses by producing cash memo or admissible evidence, therefore, the award of compensation towards medical expenses of ₹ 7,000 is affirmed.

¶49

Compensation awarded under the head of conveyance expenses and special diet as also on attendant are also just and proper looking to the facts of case, which do not call for any interference.

¶50

Claims Tribunal has awarded only ₹ 5,000 towards pain and suffering which in the opinion of this Court is on lower side and therefore, it is enhanced to ₹ 8,000.

¶51

For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellant-claimant- Smt. Shanti Bai Gendle requires recomputation, which

¶52

is as under.

¶53

Particulars	Compensation
Loss of income during laid down period of 02 months (₹ 7800x2)	₹ 15,600/-
Medical expenses (maintained)	₹ 7,000/-
Special Diet (maintained)	₹ 5,000/-
Conveyance Expenses (maintained)	₹ 5,000/-
Attendant (maintained)	₹ 5,000/-
Mental Pain and sufferings	₹ 8,000/-
Total	₹ 45,600/-

¶54

Now the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 45,600 instead of ₹ 39,000 as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount paid to the appellant-claimant pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted

¶55

6 / 8

¶56

from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶57

In MAC No. 448 of 2019

¶58

Learned counsel for appellants-claimants submitted that the claimants are satisfied with the amount of award towards dependency and other heads, however, this appeal is filed on the ground that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded amount of compensation towards loss of consortium to all the claimants. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 claimants are entitled for ₹ 40,000 each towards loss of consortium. He would also submit that in view of the decision in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) Claims Tribunal erred in not enhancing amount of compensation under the other conventional heads by 10% in every three years, as the accident is of the year 2017.

¶59

Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants-claimants and would submit that the Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case has awarded just compensation which does not call for any interference.

¶60

So far as the submission made by learned counsel for appellants-claimants that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium to all the claimants is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram (supra) has explained types of consortium and held that apart from awarding loss of spousal consortium to widow/ husband, children and parents of the deceased will also be entitled for loss of consortium under the head of loss

¶61

7 / 8

¶62

of parental consortium and loss of filial consortium respectively. In the case at hand, appellants No. 2, 3 & 4 are children of deceased, therefore, they will also be entitled for loss of parental consortium of ₹ 40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly.

¶63

So far as the submission of counsel for appellants-claimants of increase of compensation on other conventional heads is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has observed that compensation under the head of other conventional heads is to be enhanced by 10% in every three years. Therefore, amount of compensation under the heads of funeral expenses would be ₹ 16,500 instead of ₹ 15,000, loss of estate would be ₹ 16,500 instead of ₹ 15,000, and loss of consortium to all the claimants would be ₹ 44,000 each.

¶64

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

¶65

Particulars	Compensation
• Annual Loss of income = ₹ 95,160/- (₹7930x12) (maintained)	₹ 12,06,153/-
• Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 30%; ₹ 95,160 + 30% of ₹ 95,160= ₹ 1,23,708 (maintained) • Deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses=( ₹ 1,23,708x 1/4= ₹ 30,927); ₹ 1,23,708 - ₹ 30,927 = ₹ 92,781 (maintained) • Multiplier of 13 (₹ 92,781 x 13 = ₹ 12,06,153) (maintained)
Loss of Spousal Consortium to Appellant No. 1	₹ 44,000/-
Loss of parental consortium to Appellants No. 2 to 4 (₹ 44,000 each)	₹ 1,32,000/-
Loss of estate	₹ 16,500/-
Funeral Expenses	₹ 16,500/-
Total	₹ 14,15,153/-

¶66

Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 14,15,153 instead of ₹ 12,76,153 as awarded by

¶67

8 / 8

¶68

learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount paid to the appellant-claimant pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as - calculated above. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain int act.

¶69

In the result, the appeals filed by appellants-claimants are allowed in part and the impugned awards are modified to the extent as indicated hereinabove.

¶70

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶71

pwn

Shanti Bai Gendle v. Chandrabhan Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanti Bai Gendle v. Chandrabhan Yadav

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

Govind Das Tamrakar Vs Tularam Tandan

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Suman Dhruv

D. P. Vipra College Vs Dr. Ramadhar Prasad Pandey

Branch Manager Vs Smt. Heeramati

Smt. Kalindri Yadav Vs Kishan Lal Tamboli

Shanti Bai Gendle Vs Chandrabhan Yadav