Rajman Vs Manoknikar Mishra

¶1

Page No.1 of 6 IN MAC-50-2022

¶2

Digitally SAIFAN signed by KHAN SAIFAN KHAN

¶3

2025:CGHC:34192

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 50 of 2022

¶7

[Arising out of award dated 20.09.2021, passed in Claim Case No.519 of 2018 (Rajman and others v. Manoknikar Mishra and others] by the 5^th Addl. Motor Accidental Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG)]

¶8

1 - Rajman S/o Gayaram Aged About 40 Years R/o Gudhiyari, Tahsil / District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2 - Sunita W/o Rajman Pal Aged About 37 Years R/o Gudhiyari, Tahsil / District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

3 - Ajay Pal S/o Rajman Pal Aged About 13 Years Minor Through His Guardian Father Rajman Pal S/o Gayaram R/o Gudhiyari, Tahsil / District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

4 - Aarti D/o Rajman Pal Aged About 10 Years Minor Through His Guardian Father Rajman Pal S/o Gayaram R/o Gudhiyari, Tahsil / District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

5 - Vikash S/o Rajman Pal Aged About 7 Years Minor Through His Guardian Father Rajman Pal S/o Gayaram R/o Gudhiyari, Tahsil / District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Appellants/ Claimants

¶14

Versus

¶15

1 - Manoknikar Mishra S/o Rajnarayan Mishra Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Temri, Thana Mana , Tahsil / District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Probably R/o Jawaharlal Nehru Ward No. 05, Dantewada , District Dantewada Chhattisgarh. (Owner)

¶16

2 - Branch Manager Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Branch Office No. 403 , 4th Floor, Db City , Corporate Park Plot No. 1, Blok No. 9, Rajbandha Maidan, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer)

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

[Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)]

¶19

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate

¶20

Page No.2 of 6 IN MAC-50-2022

¶21

For Respondents : Mr. Sourabh Gupta & Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Adv.

¶22

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶23

(Order on Board)

¶24

18.07.2025

¶25

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 20.09.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Raipur, District Raipur in Claim Case No.519/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.9,77,200/- as compensation for the death of Sumit Pal, who was aged about 21 years.

¶26

2. Facts of the case, relevant for disposal of this appeal, are that on the date of occurrence i.e. 15.06.2018, while deceased- Sumit Pal was traveling in offending vehicle i.e. Car (Eco Sports) bearing No.CG-18-K9800, the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in rash and negligent manner, due to which, the said vehicle collied with a tree and, as a consequence of which, the deceased suffered injuries and died. Thereafter, the appellants, who are father, mother, sister and brothers of the deceased respectively, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.43,94,000/- pleading therein that on the date of the accident, the deceased was 21 years of age and used to earn Rs.12,000/- PM from the work of salesman. The deceased used to maintain his family members including the parents and after his death, his family members have no any source of income to survive. Even otherwise, the deceased was aged about 21 years on the

¶27

Page No.3 of 6 IN MAC-50-2022

¶28

date of accident and was a able-bodied person and on account of his untimely death in the accident, the appellants have suffered economical and psychological difficulties.

¶29

3. Respondents No. 1 – owner of the offending vehicle submitted his reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that the accident was not caused by the aforesaid vehicle and the deceased has died on account of his own carelessness, moreover, on the date of the accident, the driver of the said vehicle was having valid driving license as well as the said vehicle (car) was duly insured with respondent No.2, therefore, the liability of compensation lies upon the Insurance Company i.e. respondent No.2.

¶30

4. Respondent No. 2 i.e. the Insurance Company has opposed the claim application stating that the said vehicle (Car) was being used in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy.

¶31

5. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Sumit Pal died in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid vehicle i.e. Car (Eco Sports) bearing No.CG-18-K-9800, which was driven by one Kuldeep Pathak and owned by respondent No. 1 herein. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, and after calculating the amount of compensation, awarded Rs. 9,77,200/- as total compensation with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application.

¶32

Page No.4 of 6 IN MAC-50-2022

¶33

6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as R s.6 ,000/- per month which should be Rs.8,320/- as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. It is further contended that the Claims Tribunal ha s erred in not awarding any compensation under the head of ‘loss of consortium (for brothers & sisters)’, therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced.

¶34

7 . Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the appellants have failed to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence, the Tribunal is justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. The amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference.

¶35

8 . I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶36

9 . Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased Sumit Pal to be Rs.6,000/-, however, in the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for agriculture work, the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs.8,320/- PM (as per

¶37

Page No.5 of 6 IN MAC-50-2022

¶38

minimum wages prescribed at relevant time) vis-a-vis Rs.99,840/- per annum. Moreover, a sum of Rs.40,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal to appellant No.1 as loss of parental consortium whereas a sum of Rs.40,000/- may also be awarded as loss of consortium (for mother, brothers & sister i.e. appellant No.02 to 05).

¶39

10. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi 1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors 2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3, this Court is computing

¶40

the compensation as below:-

¶41

Sr.	Heads	Compensatio	n	Compensation
No.		awarded by Tribunal	the	awarded by this Court
1.	Income	Rs.6000 x 1	2 =	Rs.8320 x 12 =
		Rs. 72,000/-		Rs.99,840/-
2.	Future Prospect	(+) 40%	i.e.	(+) 40% i.e. Rs.
		Rs. 28,800	=	39,936 = Rs.
		Rs.1,00,800/-		1,39,776/-
3.	Deduction	(-) ½	=	(-) ½ = Rs.
		Rs. 50,400/-		69,888/-
4.	Multiplier	(x) 18	=	(x) 18 = Rs.
		Rs. 9,07,200/-		12,57,984/-
5.	Loss of Estate	Rs. 15,000/-		Rs,15,000/-
6.	Funeral Expenses	Rs. 15,000/-		Rs. 15,000/-
7.	Loss of Parental Consortium (for appellant No.1)	Rs. 40,000/-		Rs.40,000/-
8.	Loss of Consortium (for	Not assessed		Rs. 40,000/- X 4

¶42

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶43

2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶44

3 (2018) 18 SCC 130

¶45

Page No.6 of 6 IN MAC-50-2022

¶46

appellants No.02 to 5)		=Rs.1,60,000/-
Total	Rs. 9,77,200/-	Rs. 14,87,984/-

¶47

11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.9,77,200/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 14,87,984/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.9,77,200 /-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.5,10,784/- . The Respondents are directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 09.08.2018 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶48

12. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. The deposit Tribunal shall pass appropriate order with regard to apportionment, investment and disbursement of the enhanced amount of compensation.

¶49

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶50

s@if

Rajman v. Manoknikar Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

Rajman v. Manoknikar Mishra

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

Smt. Manimala Vs Dughdish Pandey @ Kishor Kumar Pandey

Smt Sita Bai Rajput Vs Ashwini Rajput

Chanikram Sahu Vs Gangaram Verma

Shivpujan Mishra Vs Manoknikar Mishra

Savitri Pal Vs Manoknikar Mishra

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Dukalhin Bai Patel