Samunbai Uraonv Vs Surendra Kumar Patel

1 - Surendra Kumar Patel S/o Ramsingh Patel Aged About 52 Years R/o Darrabhatha, Police Station Baradwar, District Janjagir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (Driver)

¶15

2 - Thakur Ram Chandra S/o Sevakram Chandra Aged About 43 Years R/o Darrabhatha, Police Station Baradwar, District- Janjgir-Chamapa, Chhattisgarh

¶16

(Owner)

¶17

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.07.08 10:21:20 +0530

¶18

3 - Branch Manager Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company)

¶19

-2-

¶20

... Respondent(s)

¶21

__________________ For Appellant (s)	______________________________________ : Ms. Durga Mehar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate
For Resp. No. 1 & 2	: None appears
For Resp. No.3	: Ms. Shrishti Upadhyay, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D.L. Dewangan, Advocate

¶22

_______________________________________________________

¶23

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

¶24

25/06/2025

¶25

With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally.

¶26

This is the claimants’ appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Third Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Janjgir-Champa (CG) vide award dated 17.12.2018 passed in Claim Case No.24 of 2018.

¶27

Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before learned Third Additional Motor Accidents Tribunal, Janjgir-Champa for grant of compensation pleading therein that on 01.12.2017 when Amrit Lal was going to his residence in village Ghoriya from village Deragarh, driver of Tractor CG/11/AM/0127 i.e. non-applicant No.1, driving his vehicle rashly and negligently, caused an accident due to which Amrit Lal sustained serious injuries on his head, face, neck, hands, legs and waist. He succumbed to injuries on the spot itself. The applicants have prayed for compensation of Rs. 51,65,000/- (fifty one lakh sixty five

¶28

-3-

¶29

thousand rupees) from the non-applicants under various heads due to death of Amritlal in the above accident.

¶30

Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 by filing their written statement have stated that vehicle of non-applicant was not involved in accident. Nonapplicant No. 1 is a valid licensed driver of the offending vehicle and non-applicant No.2 is the legal owner and the offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3 on the date of the incident. Therefore, the liability to pay amount of compensation if any, is upon non-applicant No.3/ insurance company.

¶31

Non applicant No.3 in its written statement has denied the claim of the applicants and has stated that driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle without a valid and effective driving license, it was in the knowledge of the vehicle owner, which is breach of conditions of insurance policy. The accident occurred due to negligent driving by the deceased himself, therefore, the compensation is deductible in proportion to the contributory negligence. The offending vehicle was not insured with non-applicant No.3 at the time of the accident and was being driven in violation of the conditions of vehicle registration, in such circumstances the applicants are not entitled for compensation from non-applicant No.3.

¶32

Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which Amritlal suffered grievous injuries and died. Recording a finding that

¶33

-4-

¶34

breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found proved, learned Claims Tribunal held non-applicants liable to pay the amount of compensation. Assessing income of the appellant/claimant as Rs.3,000/- per month, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.4,89,000/ -.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is on lower side. Though claimants have specifically pleaded about nature of occupation of deceased as Mason and his income as Rs.10,500/- per month, however, Tribunal has assessed the income as Rs.3,000/- per month only overlooking the date of accident. She further contended that learned Tribunal awarded less compensation on other conventional heads also.

¶36

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3/opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and would submit that amount of compensation as awarded by learned Tribunal, in the facts of the case, is just and proper. As the claimants have failed to prove by producing admissible pieces of evidence with regard to nature of occupation as also income of deceased as pleaded in the claim application, hence, income of the deceased is assessed by the Tribunal on notional basis which does not call for any interference.

¶37

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of the Claims Tribunal.

¶38

To appreciate the submission of learned counsel for the appellants with

¶39

-5-

¶40

respect to assessment of income of deceased by learned Tribunal is concerned, true it is that claimants/appellants have not submitted any document to show occupation/income of deceased. In such circumstances, income of the deceased is to be assessed on notional basis. Tribunal has rightly taken decision to assess the income of deceased on notional basis, however, to asses income on notional basis, Tribunal/Court is required to keep in mind the factors like cost of living, price index, wage rates structure and also minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act for unskilled labourer prevailing on the date of accident and can also take into consideration notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

¶41

For the purpose of assessing income of deceased on notional basis in absence of any specific evidence, this Court finds it appropriate to take help of the Notification issued by the Commissioner-cum- Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. In the Notification for ‘Class-C zone/area’ for the period from 01.10.2017 to 31.03.2018 for ‘unskilled labourer’, monthly income has been fixed as Rs.7930/- per month. Hence, it is ordered accordingly.

¶42

From perusal of the award passed by learned Claims Tribunal it is appearing that while computing the award of compensation, learned Claims Tribunal erred in not adding future prospect of the assessed income of the deceased as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680. Looking to the age of deceased on the date of accident to be 32 years, there shall be addition of 40% of the assessed

¶43

-6-

¶44

income of the deceased towards future prospects. It is ordered accordingly.

¶45

Claimants are widow and children of deceased who are four in number, therefore, there shall be deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses of deceased which, the learned Tribunal has rightly deducted. Considering the age of deceased, multiplier of 16 would be applicable, which has also been correctly applied by the Tribunal.

¶46

Learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium to appellant/claimant No.1, Rs.60,000/- towards loss of love and affection to appellant/claimants No. 2 to 4, Rs.25,000/towards loss of estate and Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses. Award of compensation under the aforesaid heads is not in accordance with the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130. In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), it was held that claimant will be entitled for Rs.15,000/towards ‘loss of estate’, Rs.15,000/-towards ‘funereal expenses’ and Rs.40,000/- towards ‘loss of consortium’. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nanu Ram (supra) has specified types of consortium and it was held that there are three types of consortium i.e. ‘loss of spousal consortium to wife/husband, ‘loss of parental consortium’ to children and loss of ‘filial consortium’ to parents of the deceased. Hence, appellant/claimant No. 1/wife of the deceased is entitled for loss of spousal consortium of Rs.40,000/-; appellants/claimants No. 2 to 4 being children of deceased are also entitled for loss of ‘parental

¶47

-7-

¶48

consortium’ of Rs.40,000/- each . It is ordered accordingly.

¶49

For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the

¶50

amount of compensation as under:-

¶51

S. N.	Heads		Compensation
1.	A)Loss of Income/dependency 7930 x 12 =95160	:	Rs.14,21,056
	(B) Addition towards future prospects @ 40%(95160 x 40% =38064) 95160+38064= 133224 (C)Deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses (133224 x1/3 =44408) 133224 -44408= 88816 (D)Multiplier of 16 88816 x16 = 14,21,056
2.	Funeral Expenses	:	(+) Rs. 15,000
3.	Loss of Estate	:	(+) Rs. 15,000
4.	Spousal Consortium to claimant/appellant No.1 (wife)	:	(+) Rs. 40,000
5.	Loss of parental consortium to claimants/appellants No. 2 to 4 @ 40,000/- each		(+) Rs. 1,20,000
	Total compensation		Rs. 15,11,056

¶52

Now the appellant/claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs.15,11,056/- instead of Rs.4,89,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

¶53

Aforementioned total amount of compensation shall carry interest @

¶54

7% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its

¶55

-8-

¶56

realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.

¶57

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

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶60

Praveen

Samunbai Uraonv v. Surendra Kumar Patel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samunbai Uraonv v. Surendra Kumar 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

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Kavita Bai

Tata a. I. G. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Saroj Agrawal

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Kadam Kunwar

Upendra Kumar Singh Vs Smt. Minal Singh

Upendra Kumar Singh Vs Ritesh Singh

Upendra Kumar Singh Vs Manoj Singh