Premchand Shukla Vs Sariful Ansari

Sariful Ansari S/o Mohd. Yenul Ansari Aged About 38 Years Occupation Driver R/o Village Dasouti P. S. Amba District Orangabad (Aurangabad) Bihar ( Driver Of Truck No. BR 26 H 5870)

¶13

Abhay Narayan S/o Ripusudan Tiwari Occupation Driver R/o Krishnanagar, Orangabad P. S. and District Orangabad Bihar ( Owner Of Truck No. BR26H5870)

¶14

The Branch Manager Chola Mandalam M. S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, Ward No. 25 (Guru Govind Singh Ward), 2nd Floor Simran Tower Near L. I. C. Building Pandari Road, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ( Insurer Of Truck No. Br 26 H 5870)

¶15

Mujahid Khan S/o Mohd. Jakir Khan Aged About 22 Years Occupation Driver R/o Village Jamdih Bagicha Post Urdara P. S. And Tahsil Lundra District Surguja Chhattisgarh.(Driver Of Bolero Camper Vehicle No. CG15CZ 6288)

¶16

Sanjay Gupta S/o Rajkumar Gupta Aged About 45 Years Occupation Teacher, R/o Village Jamdih Bagicha Post Urdara P. S. And Tahsil Lundra District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Bolero Camper Vehicle No. CG15CZ 6288)

¶17

--- Respondents

¶18

PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA

¶19

WITH

¶20

2 / 11

¶21

MAC No. 819 of 2020

¶22

Branch Manager, Cholamandlam General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Ward No. 25 Guru Govind Singh Ward Second Floor Simaran Tower Pandri Near Lic Building, Pandri Road Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶23

--- Appellant

¶24

Versus

¶25

Premchand Shukla S/o Late Ramnagina Shukla Aged About 37 Years R/o House No. 237 Irrigation Colony Ramanujganj Road Ambikapur, Police Station And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh

¶26

Ajay Shukla S/o Late Ramnagina Shukla Aged About 31 Years R/o House No. 237 Irrigation Colony Ramanujganj Road Ambikapur, Police Station And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh

¶27

Vidyacharan Shukla S/o Late Ramnagina Shukla Aged About 29 Years R/o House No. 237 Irrigation Colony Ramanujganj Road Ambikapur, Police Station And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh

¶28

Sariful Ansari S/o Mohd. Enul Ansari Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Dasouti, Police Station Amba, District Aourangabad (Bihar), (Driver Truck No. BR 26H5870)

¶29

Abhay Narayan S/o Ripusudan Tiwari Aged About 27 Years R/o Shrikrishna Nagar Aourangabad, Police Station And District Aourangabad (Bihar), (Owner Track No. BR26H5870)

¶30

Mujahid Khan S/o Mohd. Jakir Khan Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Jamdih (Bagichapara), Post Urdar, Police Station And Tehsil Lundra, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, (Driver Bolero No. CG 15 CZ6288)

¶31

Sanjay Gupta S/o Rajkumar Gupta Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Jamdih (School Para), Post Urdara, Police Station And Tahsil Lundra, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh (Owner Bolero No. CG 15 CZ6288)

¶32

--- Respondents

¶33

MAC No. 575 of 2020

¶34

For Appellants : Ms. Akanchha Vishwakarma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Shrishti Upadhyay, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D.L. Dewangan, Advocate For Respondents No. 4 & 5 : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate

¶35

MAC No. 819 of 2020

¶36

For Appellant : Ms. Shrishti Upadhyay, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D.L. Dewangan, Advocate

¶37

For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Ms. Akanchha Vishwakarma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate

¶38

For Respondents No. 6 & 7 : Mr. Sanjay Pathak and Mr. Devashish Vishwas Advocate

¶39

3 / 11

¶40

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶41

Judgment On Board

¶42

10/07/2025

¶43

Challenge in these appeals is to the impugned award dated 05.12.2019 passed by Learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 141/2017, whereby Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) by the applicants in part and awarded ₹ 19,06,472/- as total compensation.

¶44

MAC No. 575 of 2020 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal; and MAC no. 819 of 2020 is filed by non-applicant No. 3-Insurance Company challenging the impugned award on the ground that the Claims Tribunal erred in awarding the compensation to the claimants who are major sons and not dependent upon the deceased mother and also on the ground that the death of deceased was not a result of motor accidental injuries as she died about 06 months after happening of accident.

¶45

Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 01.05.2017 when Smt. Jamanti Shukla along with other companion Smt. Dulari Bai,Gangotri Bai and Smt. Savitri Lashkar was going to his native place Ambikapur from Rajpur travelling in a Bolero Camper vehicle No. CG15CZ6288, at about 03:00 p.m. and reached near village Chanchi Forest Barrier, Ambikapur-Ramanujganj main road, a Truck No. BR26H5870 (hereinafter referred to as “offending truck”) driven by non-applicant No. 1- Sariful Ansari rashly and negligently, dashed the bolero vehicle from its front and caused accident, due to which Smt. Jamanti Shukla suffered grievous injuries over her chest, head and other parts of body. She was taken to Primary Health Centre, from where she was referred to District Hospital,

¶46

4 / 11

¶47

Ambikapur and thereafter looking to her serious condition, she was referred to higher centre. She took treatment from Medishine Health Care and Research Centre, Raipur. She thereafter was discharged from the hospital and took continuous treatment at her home, where she died due to injuries.

¶48

Applicants-claimants who are sons of deceased-Smt. Jamanti Shukla filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 50,10,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident, deceased was 50 years of age. She was a Government servant, employed as Waterman, earning ₹ 19,131 per month.

¶49

Non-applicants No. 1 & 2- driver and owner of offending truck submitted reply to the application, while denying the pleadings made therein it was further pleaded that on 01.05.2017 no accident was caused from the offending truck. False report has been lodged against non-applicant No. 1. The offending truck owned by non-applicant No. 2 was insured by non-applicant No. 3- Insurance Company on the date of accident. Non-applicant no. 1 was having valid fitness certificate, national permit of the vehicle on the date of alleged accident.

¶50

Non-applicant No. 3-Insurance Company submitted its reply, denying the pleadings made in the claim application and further pleaded that no accident occurred by the offending truck but it was occurred due to negligent driving of Bolero vehicle in which the deceased and others were travelling. Case has been filed on false and fabricated grounds. The date of accident was 01.05.2017 whereas the report was lodged on 04.05.2017. On the date of accident the offending truck was being plied in breach of insurance policy conditions as there was no valid and effective driving licence of driver of offending truck and valid permit.

¶51

5 / 11

¶52

Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, recorded a finding that the deceased-Smt. Jamanti Shukla died due to grievous injuries suffered in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending truck by Non-applicant No. 1 owned by non-applicant No. 2 and insured by nonapplicant No. 3. Breach of conditions of insurance policy and contributory negligence on the part of Bolero vehicle was not found to be proved, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded total sum of ₹ 19,06,472 and fastened liability upon non-applicants No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally and held non-applicant No. 3-insurance company to be primarily liable.

¶53

I will consider the ground raised by learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company in their appeal No. 819 of 2020 with regard to erroneously awarding of compensation to the claimants who are major sons and not dependent upon the deceased mother and also that the death of deceased was not a result of motor accidental injuries as she died about 06 months after happening of accident.

¶54

Perusal of record would show that the deceased Smt. Jamanti Shukla suffered motor accidental injuries on 01.05.2017, injuries were grievous in nature. Claimants have submitted documents of her treatment, discharge summary of Shri Medishine Hospital, Raipur as Ext. P-8, wherein it is mentioned that the injured was admitted in the hospital on 02.05.2017 and discharged on 03.06.2017. She underwent operation and in the diagnosis column it is mentioned as “Head Injury Left Frontal EDH With Odema With Fracture Right Clavicle”. Under the column- presenting complaint- following is mentioned : “H/O- RTA WITH HEAD INJURY WITH FRACTURE RIGHT CLAVICAL; H/O-LOC, VOMITING, ENT BLEED; C/O-STITCHES WOUND LEFT FOREHEAD WITH RT SWELLEN BLACK EYE; O/E-GC POOR, PATIENT

¶55

6 / 11

¶56

UNCONSCIOUS, GCS-E2V2M3, PUPIL-B/L 4MMRTL, BP-110/70MMHG, AFEBRILE, RR-20/MIN,P-78/MIN, RBS-200MGDL,SPO2-100%”. In the procedure column, it is mentioned “Tracheostomy done on 05.05.2017 by Dr. R.S. Chaurasiya; PEG done by Dr. Suphal Gajhabhiye on 09.05.2017.

¶57

Doctor is also examined by the claimants before the Claims Tribunal as witness No. 1. In his evidence, he categorically stated that conditions of patient Mrs. Jamati Shukla was serious, she was unconscious at the time of admission. Even after operation her condition did not improve much. She was facing problem of breathing for which stoma was made through tracheostomy. At the time of discharge, the patient was subconscious. Claimants in their claim application have pleaded that the deceased died at home while continuing taking medicines for the injury suffered by her.

¶58

From the pleadings in claim application and evidence available on record of

¶59

Dr. Rajesh Jain, Neurosurgeon, treating doctor, it is apparent that in the accident, claimant/ deceased suffered severe head injury and even after treatment she was facing breathing problem and her condition had not improved at the time of discharge. Even after treatment of one month, at the time of discharge, she was in subconscious condition.

¶60

Though initially claim was filed seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by Smt. Jamanti Shukla and after her death during pendency of claim application, pleadings were amended and appellants/applicants were impleaded as claimants and they have sought relief for the compensation against death of their mother mentioning that death of their mother was a result of motor accidental injury suffered by her. Even after incorporation of amendment in the claim application, non-applicant No. 3, therein has not made any consequential amendment in their reply, though they were represented by the counsel and contested the case on merits till its decision.

¶61

In the aforementioned facts of the case, in absence of pleadings challenging the claim against the death of deceased on account of motor accidental

¶62

7 / 11

¶63

injuries suffered by her cannot be considered at the appellate stage when the very ground has not been raised before the Claims Tribunal, and raised before this Court for the first time.

¶64

In view of the aforementioned facts of the case, first ground raised by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the death of deceased is not on account of motor accidental injuries suffered by her, is not sustainable and it is repelled.

¶65

So far as the second ground raised by counsel for appellant-Insurance Company that the claimants were not dependent upon the deceased and therefore they are not entitled for compensation under the head of loss of dependency is concerned, in the pleadings claimants have pleaded that they were dependent upon income of deceased. Claimant no. 3 is examined before the Claims Tribunal as AW-1. In his evidence, he stated the fact that her mother died due to motor accidental injuries suffered by her, she was an employee with the Water Resources Department and working on the post of Waterman, earning ₹ 19,131 per month. She was expending about 1/3rd upon her. In cross-examination he admitted that the applicant No. 1 Premchandra Shukla was in Government service and working with Public Works Department. Claimant No. 2 is making attempt to get the compassionate appointment. This witness was though cross-examined by the counsel for non-applicant No. 3-Insurance Company, however, no specific question has been put to this witness that he and the claimant No. 2 are having separate source of income and were not dependent upon the deceased. Deceased was none other than the mother of claimants. In the pleadings it is mentioned that claimants were dependent upon the income of deceased and further from evidence of AW-1 it is appearing that the claimant No. 3 was not doing any work and having no source of income and further the non-applicant No. 2 who is also not an earning member and was making attempt to get compassionate appointment.

¶66

8 / 11

¶67

In the aforementioned facts of the case, even if claimant No. 1 is not to be considered as dependent upon the deceased, the other two ie., claimants No. 2 and 3 who are also sons of deceased, even if they are major, but not having sufficient source of income. In the above facts of the case, they can be treated as dependent upon the mother who was a Government servant and having fixed income from it.

¶68

For the foregoing discussion, in the facts of the case and the evidence available on record, second ground raised by counsel for appellant-Insurance company that the Claims Tribunal erred in awarding compensation to the claimants considering them to be dependents upon the deceased is not sustainable and accordingly it is also repelled.

¶69

Consequently the appeal filed by the Insurance Company in MAC No. 819 of 2020 being sans merit is dismissed .

¶70

Now I will consider the appeal, MAC No. 575 of 2020 filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation.

¶71

Learned counsel for appellants-claimants submitted that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as ₹ 18,147 per month, deducting 1/2 towards personal and living expenses, not awarded entire claim towards medical expenses and the compensation on the other conventional heads to be on lower side.

¶72

So far as the ground raised by the counsel for appellants with regard to income of deceased is concerned, claimants in support of claim application have filed copy of salary slip issued under the signature of Executive Engineer mentioning the gross salary of deceased as ₹ 18,822. Claims Tribunal has deducted ₹ 120 towards Tribal Allowance, ₹ 540 towards House Rent Allowances and ₹ 75 towards Washing Allowance. Claimants being residing in the tribal area, in one house along with their mother and therefore Tribal allowance and House Rent Allowance can be treated as income of deceased. Claims Tribunal erred in deducting said allowances from the

¶73

9 / 11

¶74

income of deceased which is not sustainable and accordingly it is set aside. The monthly income of deceased for the purpose of computing the amount of compensation would be ₹ 18,747 [₹ 18822- ₹ 75 (washing allowance)].

¶75

As far as deduction towards personal and living expenses is concerned, perusal of award would show that the Claims Tribunal has deducted 1/3 towards personal and living expenses which in the facts of the case has correctly deducted and does not call for any interference. Further, application of multiplier of 11 in the facts of the case where the age of deceased was in between 50-60 years, is also correct. According to the service book, date of birth of deceased is mentioned as 07.12.1963, from which it is also clear that on the date of accident deceased was in between 50-60 years of age. Claims Tribunal has further correctly added 15% of the assessed income towards future prospects and further awarded ₹ 40,000/- towards loss of consortium, ₹ 15,000/- towards loss of estate and ₹ 15,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses. As the claimants are three sons, therefore, all three will be entitled for ₹ 40,000/- each under the head of loss of parental consortium 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 .

¶76

Though the claimants have not proved medical expenses by submitting relevant bills, however, perusal of other documents of the Shri Medishine Hospital, placed on record as also the evidence of doctor AW-3 and looking to the procedure underwent by the deceased during her lifetime, it is apparent that the claimants might have expended sufficient amount for her treatment when she took treatment as in-patient in a private hospital for about more than one month, underwent operation. The Court is not unmindful of the fact that the deceased was a Government servant may be entitle for medical reimbursement but it is also correct that the deceased

¶77

10 / 11

¶78

being Class-IV employee will not be entitled for reimbursement of entire medical bill. Reimbursement will be according to her entitlement and therefore, I find it appropriate to award ₹ 50,000 towards medical expenses. As per the evidence of doctor, the injured was admitted in the hospital in unconscious condition and even after treatment for one month, at the time of discharge her condition was subconscious and considering the fact that she was continuously taking treatment at her home, I find it appropriate to award compensation of ₹ 36,000/- towards attendant for a period of 06 months and ₹ 20,000/- towards expenses on special diet and ₹ 20,000/- towards conveyance expenses.

¶79

For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires recomputation, which is as under.

¶80

Particulars	Compensation
• Annual Loss of income = ₹ 2,24,964/- (₹ 18,747 x12)	₹18,97,203/-
• Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 15% (₹ 224964 +15% of ₹ 224964 = ₹ 2,58,709) • Deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses( ₹ 2,58,709x 1/3= ₹ 86,236); ₹ 2,58,709 - ₹ 86,236 = ₹ 1,72,473/- • Multiplier of 11 ₹ 172473 x 11 = ₹ 18,97,203/-
Loss of parental consortium to Appellants (₹ 40,000 each)	₹ 1,20,000/-
Medical Expenses	₹ 50,000/-
Attendant cost	₹ 36,000/-
Special Diet	₹ 20,000/-
Conveyance expenses	₹ 20,000/-
Loss of estate	₹ 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses	₹ 15,000/-
Total	₹ 21,73,203/-

¶81

Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 21,73,203/- instead of ₹ 19,06,472/- as awarded by learned Claims

¶82

11 / 11

¶83

Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization.

¶84

Any amount paid to the appellants-claimants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶85

In the result, appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is dismissed and the appeal filed by appellant-claimant is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.

¶86

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶87

pwn

Premchand Shukla v. Sariful Ansari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premchand Shukla v. Sariful Ansari

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

Dev Singh Pradhan Vs Koushal Namdev

New India Insurance Company Limited Vs Anubhav Singh

Branch Manager, Vs Smt. Deve (Mandavi)(Madavi)

Kripalu Yadav Vs Pradeep Kumar Yadav

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Sammat Bai

Naveen Sahu Vs Shatrughan Yadav