Kunwar Das Jangde Vs Santosh Kumar Kaiwartya

¶1

1 / 2

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

MAC No. 506 of 2020

¶4

KUNWAR DAS JANGDE versus SANTOSH KUMAR KAIWARTYA

¶5

Order on Board

¶6

07/04/2025	Mr. C.K. Sahu, Advocate for Appellants.
PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA	Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrwal, Advocate for Resp. No. 3. Office report shows that the notice sent to the Respondents No. 1 & 2 is unserved. Learned counsel for appellants as well as for Respondent No. 3 submitted that the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon the Insurance Company. In the aforementioned fact of the case, service of notice upon Respondents No. 1 & 2 is dispensed with. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2020, application for condonation of delay of 1232 days in filing the appeal. The grounds pleaded in the application and the submission made by learned counsel for appellants are opposed by learned counsel for Respondent No. 3.

07/04/2025

Mr. C.K. Sahu, Advocate for Appellants.

PAWAN
KUMAR
JHA
Digitally
signed by
PAWAN
KUMAR JHA

Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj
Agrwal, Advocate for Resp. No. 3.
Office report shows that the notice sent to the
Respondents No. 1 & 2 is unserved.
Learned counsel for appellants as well as for Respondent
No. 3 submitted that the liability to satisfy the amount of
compensation is upon the Insurance Company.
In the aforementioned fact of the case, service of notice
upon Respondents No. 1 & 2 is dispensed with.
Heard on I.A. No. 01/2020, application for condonation of
delay of 1232 days in filing the appeal.
The grounds pleaded in the application and the
submission made by learned counsel for appellants are opposed
by learned counsel for Respondent No. 3.

¶7

2 / 2

¶8

On due consideration of the submission of learned
counsel for respective parties and the pleadings made in the application, I.A. No. 01/2020 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Appeal is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, case is heard finally. Order passed separately. Signed and dated.
pwn Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

1 / 7

2025:CGHC:16139

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶13

MA C No. 506 of 202 0

¶14

Kunwar Das Jangde Son of Late Budhari Jangde Aged About 45 Years Caste Satnami.

¶15

Savitri Bai Jangde Wife of Kunwardas Jangde Aged About 40 Years Caste Satnami.

¶16

Both are Resident of Boda, Chowki Setganga, Mungeli, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶17

--- Appellants/ Claimants

¶18

versus

¶19

Santosh Kumar Kaiwartya Son of Faguram Kaiwartya Aged About 30 Years Resident of Village Mahamaya Para, Takhatpur, P.S. And Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ( Driver)

¶20

Shri Jagjit Singh Makkad Son of Dilip Singh Makkad Resident of Village Takhatpur, P.S. and Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ( Owner)

¶21

The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer)

¶22

--- Respondents

¶23

____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. C.K. Sahu, Advocate For Resp. No. 3 : Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate

¶24

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶25

Order On Board

¶26

07/04/2025

¶27

Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 22.06.2016 passed by Learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 220/2011, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section

¶28

PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA

¶29

2 / 7

¶30

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 5,12,500/- as compensation in death case.

¶31

Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 01.02.2010, when Ranjit Singh was coming from Bilaspur to Takhatpur on his motorcycle No. CG10-3772, he stopped his motorcycle on the side of the road to urinate. At that relevant time, tractor No. MP 26 E-5595 and trolley No. MP 26 E 5596, driven rashly and negligently by Resp. No. 1/ driver, caused an accident due to which Ranjit Singh died on the spot. The accident was reported to the police station Takhatpur, based on which Crime No. 34/2010 for alleged offence under Section 304(A) IPC was registered.

¶32

Appellants, parents of deceased Ranjit Singh, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking ₹ 29,50,000/- as compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was about 28 years of age, was an able bodied person. At the time of accident, the deceased was doing business of milk vendor and earning ₹ 300 to 400/- per day and maintaining himself and his family.

¶33

Non-applicant No. 1 & 2/ Respondent No. 1 & 2-Driver and owner of tractor submitted their reply denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further stated that there was no negligence on the part of non-applicant no. 1 in the accident, in fact the deceased was driving his motorcycle rashly and negligently and dashed with the tractor. The deceased was not having valid driving license to drive motorcycle on the date of accident. Since on the date of accident, the tractor of nonapplicant no. 2 was insured with non-applicant no. 3 with all risks, nonapplicant No. 2/ driver was holding a valid license, in such a situation, the insurance company is liable for paying compensation, if any.

¶34

3 / 7

¶35

Non-applicant No. 3/ Resp. No. 3-Insurance Company in its reply, apart from accepting the undisputed facts, has denied the pleadings made in the application and further stated that non-applicant No. 2, owner of the tractortrolley, had sold the said vehicle before the accident and handed over the physical possession to one Sadhuram Pal, resident of Pandariya, District Kabirdham. The vehicle has been transferred but the insurance policy is in the name of the original owner and as no information was given to the insurance company within 14 days of the accident, non-applicant No. 3 is not liable to pay the compensation as it is a violation of the insurance terms and conditions. It is also stated that the deceased Ranjit Singh was driving the motorcycle N o. CG1 0-3772 negligently and collide with the tractor, deceased himself was negligent for the accident. There was contributory negligence of deceased in the accident, and therefore owner and the insurance company of the motorcycle are necessary parties. There was breach of policy conditions, as such, non-applicant No. 3 is not liable to pay the compensation amount, if any.

¶36

Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Ranjit Singh died because of injuries suffered in a motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of tractor by non-applicant 1. Breach of conditions of the insurance policy and contributory negligence were not found to be proved. Tribunal holding the non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation amount, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 5,12,000/- as total compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application.

¶37

Learned counsel for appellant would submit that Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre sum of compensation of ₹ 5,12,500/-. He contended that learned Claims Tribunal disbelieved the occupation and income of deceased

¶38

4 / 7

¶39

pleaded and stated by the appellants-claimants and has erroneously taken income as ₹ 4,000/- per month. He contended that at the time of accident, deceased was self employed person doing the business of milk vendor and earning ₹ 300-400/- per day, therefore, the income as pleaded in the application ought to have been taken for calculating amount of compensation, his income would have definitely increased in future, however, learned Claims Tribunal has erroneously not awarded any amount of compensation towards future prospects as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and further the Tribunal has not appropriately awarded amount towards the head of loss of estate and the head of loss of consortium to the appellants who are parents of the deceased as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. Hence, the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced.

¶40

Learned counsel for Respondent 3-Insurance Company would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellants and further submits that the appellants failed to prove the occupation and the income of deceased by bringing cogent and reliable piece of evidence, hence, the Claims Tribunal has rightly taken the income of deceased on notional basis treating the deceased to be labourer. The amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference of this Court.

¶41

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

¶42

Sofar as, the submission of learned counsel for the appellants with regard to assessment of income of the deceased is concerned, accident was of 01.02.2010, occupation of deceased is pleaded as milk vendor. True it is that

¶43

5 / 7

¶44

the appellants-claimants failed to produce any admissible piece of evidence to prove occupation and income of deceased. But for assessing income on notional basis, factors like date of accident, age of deceased, wage structure, price index etc. are to be taken into consideration. In the said facts of the case, the occupation of deceased can only be treated as a unskilled labourer for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. Therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to take the amount of wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. As per the notification issued by the competent authority, the minimum wages prevailing for an unskilled labourer is about ₹ 4,000/- per month on the date of accident, ie., 01.02.2010, which is not disputed by the counsel for Respondent No. 3. Upon taking into consideration the aforementioned factors, particularly the date of accident, age of deceased and nature of occupation to be labourer, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of deceased as ₹ 4,000/- per month which does not need any interference.

¶45

In the case at hand, deceased was 28 years of age on the date of accident as held by Tribunal, hence, there will be addition of 40% of established income in the income of deceased for assessing total income of deceased for purpose of calculating compensation as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) . Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 has issued guidelines for deducting personal and living expenses based on number of dependents upon deceased and held that where the dependents are two to three, there will be deduction of 1/3^rd and where the number of dependents are 4 to 6 there will be deduction of 1/4^th as the case may be. In the instant case, there are 2 dependents, accordingly, deduction of 1/2 of the income of deceased towards personal and living expenses has been applied by the Tribunal which cannot be said to be erroneous. Learned

¶46

6 / 7

¶47

Claims Tribunal has awarded amount of ₹ 50,000/- to each of the appellant towards love and affection which is not a head on which the amount of compensation is to be awarded. Appellants are entitled for compensation towards parental consortium in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nanu Ram (supra). Claims Tribunal has awarded ₹ 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and ₹ 2,500/- towards loss of estate which are on lower side which require to be enhanced in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra).

¶48

For the foregoing reasons, I find it appropriate to recompute the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimants as under.

¶49

Income of deceased is assessed as ₹ 4,000/- per month ie. ₹ 48,000/- per annum. Upon adding 40% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects, yearly income of deceased on the date of accident will come to ₹ 67,200/-. After deducting 1/2 towards personal and living expenses, annual loss of dependency will come to ₹ 33,600/-. Upon applying multiplier of 17 to the annual loss of dependency, for the age group 26 to 30 as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) as the deceased was held to be 28 years of age on the date of accident, total loss of dependency will come to ₹ 5,71,200/- [₹ 33,600x17]. Besides the amount of compensation towards loss of dependency, appellants-claimants shall further be entitled for ₹ 40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium, ₹ 15,000/- towards loss of estate and ₹ 15,000/- towards funeral expenses.

¶50

Now the appellants-claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 6,81,200/- [₹ 5,71,200 + ₹ 40,000 + ₹ 40,000 + ₹15,000 + ₹15,000] instead of ₹ 5,12,500/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. Aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount paid to the appellants pursuant to the

¶51

7 / 7

¶52

impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above.

¶53

Further, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lakkamma vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2021) 20 SCC 797 , it is directed that the appellants will not be entitled for the interest on the additional amount of compensation for the delayed period, which is of 1232 days.

¶54

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

¶55

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶56

pwn

Kunwar Das Jangde v. Santosh Kumar Kaiwartya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunwar Das Jangde v. Santosh Kumar Kaiwartya

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

Sanjay Kumar Sahu Vs Narmada Prasad

Smt. Naina Ambade Vs Devendra Kumar Ambade

Rahul @ Rishabh Vs Pradip

Smt. Ghana Bai Yadav Vs Executive Director

Smt. Sarita Verma Vs Satish Kumar Chandrakar

Suraj Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh