Smt. Pampa Dutta Vs M/S Shabri Engineering Works

¶1

1

¶2

RAGHVENDRAJAT Digitally signedbyRAGHVENDRAJAT

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 449 of 2018

¶6

1 - Smt. Pampa Dutta W/o Late Shekhar Dutta Aged About 40 Years R/o Patrapali, Transport Nagar, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

2 - Minor Shayak Dutta S/o Late Shekhar Dutta Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Pampa Dutta, R/o Patrapali, Transport Nagar, Raigarh, Chhattigarh (Claimants), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

...Appellant(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - M/s Shabri Engineering Works Pro. Sudershan Sukumaran, R/o 239, Vrindavan Plaza (Wrongly Mention Palza) First Floor, Jindal Road, Bhagwanpur, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Amit Singh S/o Kameshwar Singh Aged About 23 Years R/o Uchchbhatthi Road, Kirodimal Nagar, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - Manager, New India Insurance Company Ltd. Sattigudi Chowk, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

2

¶15

For Appellant(s) For Respondent(s)No. 1 & 2	: Mr. Amit Sh : None.	arma,	Advocate.
For Respondent No. 3	: Ms. Swati	Agra	wal, Advocate on
	behalf of Advocate.	Mr.	Pankaj Agrawal,

¶16

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

07/11/2025

¶19

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 17.5.2017 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal of First Additional Motor Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 64/2015 whereby an amount of Rs. 18,11,360/- with interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded in the favour of the claimants of the deceased for their irreparable loss.

¶20

Brief facts of the case, is that on 22.04.2015, the deceased was employed with Gayatri Construction, and at that time, respondent No. 1, while driving a Hydra bearing registration No. C.G.13-L2538, lost control of the vehicle, which overturned and ran over the deceased, resulting in his death on the spot. Immediately thereafter, a report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Punjipathra, and a criminal case was registered against respondent No. 1. The present appellant thereafter filed a claim case before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Raigarh, claiming compensation of Rs. 53,40,000/- on the ground that the

¶21

3

¶22

deceased was earning Rs. 14,030/- per month from his employment as a laborer. The respondent No. 2, however, denied the occurrence of the accident and, inter alia, took the plea that the insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation as the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence. After completion of the evidence and hearing both parties, the learned Claims Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to compensation of Rs. 18,11,360/-, to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally, against which the present appeal has been preferred.

¶23

The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 14,030/per month i.e. Rs. 1,68,360/- per annum. After deduction of 1/3 of the income i.e. Rs. 56,120/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 1,12,240/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 55 years and the appellants/claimants are the wife and son of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 14 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 15,71,360/-. Further Rs. 1,00,000/- towards love, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards affection and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 5,000/towards mental agony and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 18,11,360/- in favour of the wife and son of the deceased with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the

¶25

4

¶26

claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 18,11,360/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably.

¶27

On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 3 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement.

¶28

None for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶30

In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza.

¶31

Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

¶32

10.The Tribunal keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, wage structure prevailing on the date of accident and also the evidence available on record, assessed the income of the

¶33

5

¶34

deceased at Rs. 14,030/- per month which appears to be proper. Hence, accepting the income of the deceased Rs. 14,030/- per month, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,68,360/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 25% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 42,090/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 2,10,450/-.

¶35

11. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 45 years and the appellant/claimants are the wife and son of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3 (Rs. 70,150/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 1,40,300/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 14, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 19,64,200/-. The claimants are further entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate (increase of 10% in every three years) and Rs. 18,000/- for funeral expenses (increase of 10% in every three years). As per ' Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189 , the claimants are further entitled for Rs. (40,000X2+10% +10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 96,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e.

¶36

6

¶37

wife and son of the deceased would become entitled for total

¶38

compensation of Rs. 20,96,200/- in the following manner:-

¶39

S.No.	Heads	Calculation
01	Towards loss of dependency	Rs. 19,64,200/-
02	Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X2+10% +10%).	Rs. 96,000/-
03	Towards loss of estate along with increase of 10% in every threeyears.	Rs. 18,000/-
04	Towards Funeral Expenses along with increase of 10% in everythreeyears.	Rs. 18,000/-
	Total	Rs. 20,96,200/-

¶40

Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 20,96,200/-. After deducting Rs. 18,11,360/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 2,84,840/-.

¶41

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed . The claimants/appellants i.e. wife and son of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 2,84,840/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.

¶42

SD/-

¶43

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶44

Judge

¶45

Raghu Jat

Smt. Pampa Dutta v. M/S Shabri Engineering Works

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pampa Dutta v. M/S Shabri Engineering Works

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

Anil Shrivastav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mahesh and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gaukaran Singh Bhaskar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Amritbai Binjhvar

Mukesh Khatik Vs General Director, Central Industrial Security Force