Savitri Pal Vs Manoknikar Mishra

¶1

Page No.1 of 6 IN MAC-57-2022

¶2

2025:CGHC:34193

¶3

Digitally SAIFAN signed by KHAN SAIFAN KHAN

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 57 of 2022

¶7

[Arising out of award dated 20.09.2021, passed in Claim Case No.518 of 2018 (Shivpujan Mishra and others v. Manoknikar Mishra and others] by the 6^th Addl. Motor Accidental Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG)]

¶8

1 - Savitri Pal Wd/o Late Bablu Pal Aged About 38 Years R/o Gudhiyari, Tahsil/ District Raipur (C.G.), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2 - Komal D/o Late Bablu Pal Aged About 17 Years Minor Through- His Guardian Mother Savitri Pal Wd/o Late Bablu Pal, R/o Gudhiyari, Tahsil/ Distt. Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

3 - Rahul Pal S/o Late Bablu Pal Aged About 15 Years Minor ThroughHis Guardian Mother Savitri Pal Wd/o Late Bablu Pal, R/o Gudhiyari, Tahsil/ Distt. Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

... Appellants/ Claimants

¶12

Versus

¶13

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. 5, Dantewada District Dantewada Chhhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

¶14

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., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sourabh Gupta & Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Adv. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶16

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

¶17

(Order on Board)

¶18

18.07.2025

¶19

Page No.2 of 6 IN MAC-57-2022

¶20

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.520/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.9,77,200/- as compensation for the death of Rohit Pal, who was aged about 22 years.

¶21

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- Rohit 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 brother of the deceased respectively, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.37,78,000/pleading therein that on the date of the accident, the deceased was 22 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 22 years on the 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.

¶22

Page No.3 of 6 IN MAC-57-2022

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

Page No.4 of 6 IN MAC-57-2022

¶28

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 brother & sisters)’, therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced.

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

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 minimum wages prescribed at relevant time) vis-a-vis Rs.99,840/- per annum. Moreover, a sum of Rs.40,000/- has only been awarded by the Tribunal to appellant No.1 as loss of parental consortium, whereas sum

¶32

Page No.5 of 6 IN MAC-57-2022

¶33

of Rs.40,000/- may also be awarded as loss of consortium (for brother & sister i.e. appellant No.02 & 03).

¶34

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

¶35

the compensation as below:-

¶36

Sr.	Heads			Compensatio	n	Compensation
No.				awarded by Tribunal	the	awarded by this Court
1.	Income			Rs.6000 x 1 Rs. 72,000/-	2 =	Rs.8320 x 12 = Rs.99,840/-
2.	Future Prospect			(+) 40%	i.e.	(+) 40% i.e. Rs.
				Rs. 28,800 Rs.1,00,800/-	=	39,936 = Rs. 1,39,776/-
3.	Deduction			(-) ½ Rs. 50,400/-	=	(-) ½ = Rs. 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 Consortium (for No.1)	Par appe	ental llant	Rs. 40,000/-		Rs.40,000/-
8.	Loss of Consor appellants No.02 t	tium o 4)	(for	Not assessed		Rs. 40,000/- X 2 =Rs.80,000/-
	Total			Rs. 9,77,200/	-	Rs. 14,07,984/-

¶37

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶38

2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶39

3 (2018) 18 SCC 130

¶40

Page No.6 of 6 IN MAC-57-2022

¶41

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. 14,07,984/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.9,77,200 /-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.4,30,784/- . 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.

¶42

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.

¶43

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶44

s@if

Savitri Pal v. Manoknikar Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savitri Pal 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

Rajman Vs Manoknikar Mishra

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Dukalhin Bai Patel