Smt. Mehtareen Bai Dhruw Vs Abdul Rashid Baig

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:40397

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 485 of 2024

¶6

1 - Smt. Mehtareen Bai Dhruw W/o Late Shivprasad Dhruv Aged About 61 Years Permanently R/o Subhash Chowk, Telibandha, P.S. Telibandha, Dist. Raipur, C.G.

¶7

2 - Yashwant Dhruv S/o Late Shivprasad Dhruv Aged About 30 Years Permanently R/o Subhash Chowk, Telibandha, P.S. Telibandha, Dist. Raipur, C.G.

¶8

3 - Ku. Manisha Dhruv D/o Late Shivprasad Dhruv Aged About 23 Years Permanently R/o Subhash Chowk, Telibandha, P.S. Telibandha, Dist. Raipur, C.G.

¶9

4 - Ku. Shweta Dhruv D/o Late Shivprasad Dhruv Aged About 21 Years Permanently R/o Subhash Chowk, Telibandha, P.S. Telibandha, Dist. Raipur, C.G.

¶10

... Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

1 - Abdul Rashid Baig S/o Late Haneef Baig R/o Jalampur, House No. 270, Dhamtari, P.S. - City Kotwali, Tah. And Dist. Dhamtari, C.G.

¶13

2 - Mohd. Anwar Solanki S/o Mohd. Ramjan Solanki R/o Sundarganj Ward, New Bus Stand Dhamtari, P.S.- City Kotwali, Tah. And Dist. Dhamtari, C.G. (Owner Of Bus Bearing No. C.G.-08- Ak-8100)

¶14

3 - The New India Insurance Co. Ltd Through Divisional Manager (Division No. 2), The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. , Add- Life Insurance Street Pandari Raipur, P.S. Pandari, Tah. And District- Raipur C.G. (Insurer Of Bus Bearing No. C.G.-08- Ak8100)

¶15

... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Aakash Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.N. Pusty, Advocate

¶16

SHUBHAM DEY

¶17

Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY

¶18

2

¶19

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

¶20

Order On Board

¶21

12/08/2025

¶22

Appellants/Claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 10.03.2023 passed by the learned 9^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 1125/2021.

¶23

The motor accidental death of late Smt. Kalindri Dhruw due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. Bus bearing registration no. CG 08 AK 8100 driver by the Non-Applicant No. 1, owned by the Non-Applicant No. 2 and insured by the Non-Applicant No. 3 is not in dispute. Liability fastened upon the Non-Applicants to satisfy the amount of compensation jointly and severally as also, the first liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company is also not in dispute. Therefore, this Court is not adverting to the facts of case and is only dealing with the grounds raised seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre sum of compensation by assessing income of the deceased as Rs. 7,500/- per month only overlooking the date of accident i.e. 26.07.2021, nature of occupation and income as pleaded in the claim application of the deceased to be working as Beautician and earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. He next contended that learned Claims Tribunal erred in deducting ½ towards the personal and living expenses without considering number of dependents upon the deceased. He next contended that even if the

¶25

3

¶26

Claimant No. 2 would not be treated to be dependent, but the Claimants No. 3 & 4 being the unmarried daughters along with the mother of the deceased would certainly be dependent. Hence, the proper deduction would be 1/3rd instead of ½.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

The Claims Tribunal taking note of the decision in the case of Mamta & Ors. Vs. Bhav Singh @ Man Singh & Anr. reported in (2022) (4) ACCD 2115 (SC) and in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Birender & Ors. reported in (2020) ACJ 759 , Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamta Prasad Sahu & Ors. reported in (2022) ACJ 666 , Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nitaichandra Saha & Anr. reported in (2021) 1 ACCD 82 (CG) , The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jasnita Kujur & Anr . reported in (2008) ACJ 1946 , Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sushil Bhonde & Anr. reported in (2018) 4 ACCD 1962 (CG) came to the conclusion that the claimants being legal representatives of the deceased are largely dependent upon her and assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 7,800/- per month, considering occupation of deceased to be of Labourer.

¶30

Claims Tribunal further applied the deduction of ½ treating the deceased to be unmarried. As per pleadings available in the claim application, it is appearing that the deceased was married, however,

¶31

4

¶32

she is a divorced lady and is residing along with her parents, brother and sister. Even if the status of the deceased for the purpose of computing the amount of compensation is assessed by Claims Tribunal to be unmarried, then also, it is not that the deduction to be made ½ by applying straitjacket formula. In case of death of unamarried person also, if from the facts of the case, it can be culled out that the siblings of the deceased are dependent, then the proper deduction can be applied. In the case at hand, mother of the deceased was a widow lady along with the deceased, her major brother and two unmarried sisters aged about 23 and 21 years were residing together. Even if the brother is not be taken into consideration as dependent upon the income of the deceased being aged about 30 years, the unmarried sisters in the facts of the case where they have lost their father earlier would be dependent upon the income of the deceased and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal erred in applying deduction of ½ instead of 1/3rd. Accordingly, it is directed that the appropriate deduction towards the personal and living expenses would be 1/3rd. It is ordered accordingly.

¶33

So far as income of the deceased is concerned, the date of accident is 26.07.2021. Learned Claims tribunal held the occupation of the deceased to be Labourer. There is no clinching evidence to assess the wages fixed for the Unskilled Labouer in the area of which, the deceased was resident of, therefore, I find it appropriate to take help of the minimum-wages fixed for Unskilled Labourer by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The deceased was residing along with her mother and siblings at Raipur and therefore, as per notification fixing minimum wages of ‘A’ Zone area as mentioned

¶34

5

¶35

therein is Rs. 9720/-, therefore, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased as Rs. 9,720/- per month. It is ordered accordingly.

¶36

Learned Claims Tribunal has rightly added 25% towards future prospects, loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of consortium to claimants/applicants and applied multiplier of 14 which is to the tune of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram , reported in (2018) 8 SCC 130, which does not call for any interference.

¶37

In case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) , Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that there shall be increase of 10% on award of compensation on other conventional heads and therefore, the compensation towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium is to be increased by 10%. It is ordered accordingly.

¶38

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

¶39

S.	Heads		Compensation
No.
1.	(A)Loss of Income/Dependency	:	Rs. 13,60,800/-
	9720 X 12 =1,16,640/-
	(B)Addition towards future prospects
	@ 25% (1,16,640 X 25% = 29,160)
	(1,16,640 + 29160= 1,45,800)
	(C)Deduction of 1/3rd towards
	personal and livingexpenses

¶40

6

¶41

	(145800 X 1/3rd = 48,600) (145800 – 48,600 = 97,200/-) (D)Multiplier of 14 (97,200 X 14 = 13,60,800/-)
2.	Funeral Expenses (15,000 + 10% of 15,000)	: (+) Rs. 16,500/-
3.	Loss of Estate (15,000 + 10% of 15,000	: (+) Rs. 16,500/-
4.	Loss of consortium to Claimant/Appellants (40,000 + 10% of 40,000) @ Rs. 44,000/- each (44,000 X 4)	: (+) Rs. 1,76,000/-
	Total Compensation	: Rs. 15,69,800/-

¶42

Now, the Appellants/Claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs. 15,69,800/- . The enhanced 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.

¶43

Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants as compensation shall be adjusted from total amount of compensation as calculated above.

¶44

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

¶45

Certified copy as per rules.

¶46

Sd/-- /-/--------/--/-

¶47

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶48

Dey

Smt. Mehtareen Bai Dhruw v. Abdul Rashid Baig

Case brief

What is this about?

Smt. Mehtareen Bai Dhruw v. Abdul Rashid Baig

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

Prakash Vs Itwar Lal

Abhijeet Singh Chandel Vs Rameshwar Kewat

Arjun Vs Shivprakash Manikpuri

Smt. Sushila Mandavi Vs Mohan Pradhani

Chandrashekhar Vs Bhuneshwar Dewangan

Smt. Jema Kashyap Vs Kartik Nag