Jovakim Tirkey Vs Dr. Laxmi Narayan Patel

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:27952

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 504 of 2020

¶6

1 - Jovakim Tirkey S/o Late Poulus Tirkey Aged About 58 Years R/o Ward No. 7 Police Line, Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

¶7

2 - Smt. Silena Tirkey W/o Jovakim Tirkey Aged About 58 Years R/o Ward No. 7 Police Line, Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

¶8

3 - Smt. Lina Tirkey W/o Shri Tej Kishore Bhagat Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 7 Police Line, Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

4 - Vipin Tirkey S/o Jovakim Tirkey Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Dondhi Dhand, Tahsil- Kunkuri, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. .....Claimants.

¶10

... Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

1 - Dr. Laxmi Narayan Patel S/o Late Jivan Lal Patel Aged About 50 Years Occupation- Service, R/o Vet Neary Hospital, Kunkuri, Tehsil- Kunkuri, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. .....Driver And Owner.

¶13

2 - I. C. I. C. I. Lombord General Insurance Company Ltd. Local Office, Ground Flore Commercial Complex Devendra Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ......Insurer.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Appellants : Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Harish Khuntiya, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr.

¶16

Saurabh Sharma, Advocate

¶17

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

¶18

Order On Board

¶19

26/06/2025

¶20

This appeal is filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the

¶21

SHUBHAM amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its DEY

¶22

Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY

¶23

2

¶24

award dated 20.12.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur, District – Jashpur (C.G.) in M.A.C.T. No. 14/2019 whereby, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 64,16,308/- as compensation.

¶25

Facts of the case in brief are that, on 22.11.2018, when Nilesh Tirkey (since deceased) was traveling towards Jashpur on his motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 04 KN 9532 and reached near Salia Toli square, at that time, the offending car i.e Maruti Swift bearing registration no. CG 14 C 0322 being driven by the Non-applicant No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of Nilesh Tirkey and caused accident. In the said accident, the deceased Naresh Kumar Netam suffered serious injuries and during the course of treatment, he succumbed to his injuries on 18.12.2018. Subsequent to the said accident, an FIR was registered against the Respondent No. 1 bearing Crime No. 214/2018, P.S. Kunkuri, District – Jashpur for the offence punishable under Sections 279 & 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶26

In the claim application, the appellants/claimants have pleaded that the deceased Nilesh Tirkey was aged about 23 years. He was posted as Sainik in the Indian Army and earning Rs. 47,512/- per month. The claimants were dependent on the deceased for their livelihood and therefore, the claimants have claimed Rs. 60,00,000/- as loss of dependency, Rs. 30,00,000/- towards loss of future prospects, Rs. 56,668/- towards the medical expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 1,23,000/- towards damage of motorcycle, Rs. 25,000/towards funeral expenses from the non-applicants.

¶27

3

¶28

The Non-applicant No. 1 submitted his written statement denying the pleadings of the claim application and further pleaded that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was being driven by the Respondent No. 1 (owner of the offending vehicle). Even though the vehicle is not involved in the accident, if Tribunal concludes that offending vehicle is involved in accident and compensation is awarded, liability to satisfy award would be upon Non-applicant No. 2 as on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the Non-applicant No. 2.

¶29

The Non-applicant No. 2 denying the pleadings of claim application further pleaded that it was the deceased himself who was driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident with the offending car. The Non-applicant No. 1 was not having valid & effective license and permit. As such, vehicle was being plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy. Further, the claimants in support of their claim application have not produced any cogent evidence to prove the nature of occupation, age and income of the deceased.

¶30

The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciating the facts and evidence brought on record have recorded a finding that the death of the deceased was a result of motor accidental injuries suffered by him caused by the offending vehicle. Assessed the income of deceased as Rs. 40,259/- per month, computed the compensation to the tune of Rs. 64,16,308/- and fastened the liability upon the non-applicants jointly and severally.

¶31

The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of compensation to the appellants/claimants. He submits that the deceased Nilesh Tirkey was

¶32

4

¶33

working as Sainik in the Indian Army and was posted at TPT Bengaluru Unit, 571 ASC BN. His salary was Rs. 47,512/- per month. However, the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased Rs. 40,259/- which in view of the documentary evidence i.e. Salary Slip (Ex. P/23) is erroneous. He next contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded the amount of consortium to the Appellants No. 1 & 2 who are parents of the deceased. According to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram , reported in (2018) 8 SCC, the parents are entitled for loss of filial consortium of Rs. 40,000/- each. Lastly, he contended that the award of interest at the rate of 6% per annum is also on lower side.

¶34

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 opposes the submission made by the counsel for the appellant/claimants and would submit that the amount of compensation awarded in the facts of the case is justified and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶35

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

¶36

The main contention of the counsel for the appellant is with respect to the assessment of income of the deceased to be on the lower side. The claimants/appellants in support of their pleadings with regard to the income of the deceased has placed in record, statement of the accounts for the month ending October, 2018 which is being referred by the counsel for the appellants during the course of argument.

¶37

11.Perusal of the aforementioned statement of account would show that apart from the other heads, an amount was credited under the head of other adjustments of Rs. 7253. The statement of accounts for the

¶38

5

¶39

month of November, 2018 is also available. In the said statement, total credits has been shown to be of Rs. 40,259/-, there is a head of other adjustments, however, no amount has been credited under the said head. Perusal of the aforementioned two documents i.e. Salary Slip (Ex. P/23) and Account Statement (Ex. P/24) would show that the amount credited to the head of other adjustments was not the regular income and therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly taken note of the total income of the deceased as Rs. 40,259/- from the income as mentioned in Salary Slip (Ex. P/23) i.e. Rs. 47, 512/-. If the amount of Rs. 7,253/- is deducted, the regular income of the deceased would come to Rs. 40,259/-. In view of the aforementioned facts, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 40,259/-. Accordingly, the submission of counsel for the appellants that Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs. 40,259/- instead of Rs. 47,512/is not sustainable and accordingly, it is repelled.

¶40

So far as the second submission of counsel for the appellant with regard to non-award of compensation under the head of loss of consortium to the Appellants No. 1 & 2 is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled this issue in case of Nanu Ram (Supra). It is held that the wife/husband is entitled for spousal consortium, children are entitled for loss of parental consortium and parents are entitled for loss of filial consortium. The learned Claims Tribunal fell into error in not awarding loss of filial consortium to the Appellants No. 1 & 2 who are parents of the deceased. For the aforementioned discussion, I find it appropriate to award Rs. 40,000/- each (in total Rs. 80,000/-) to the Appellants No. 1 & 2 towards the loss of filial consortium.

¶41

6

¶42

Further, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded interest in the amount of compensation at the rate of 6% per annum for the accident which occurred in the year 2018. Considering the aforementioned facts, the date on which, the accident occurred, bank rates of interest on fixed deposit, I find it appropriate to award interest @ of 7.5%. It is ordered accordingly.

¶43

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

¶44

Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.64,96,308/[ 64,16,308 (award of compensation awarded by Tribunal towards loss of dependency) + 80,000 (loss of filial consortium)]. This enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶45

Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants No. 1 to 4 as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above.

¶46

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

¶47

Certified copy as per rules.

¶48

Sd/-d/-- /-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶49

Dey.0

Jovakim Tirkey v. Dr. Laxmi Narayan Patel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jovakim Tirkey v. Dr. Laxmi Narayan Patel

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

Samunbai Uraonv Vs Surendra Kumar Patel

Upendra Kumar Singh Vs Smt. Minal Singh

Upendra Kumar Singh Vs Ritesh Singh

Branch Manager Vs Smt. Preeti Singh

Akhilendra Pratap Singh Vs Monu Chouhan

Smt. Priti Singh Vs Chintaram Sahu