Smt. S. Laxmi Vs Ravikant Sharma

Ravikant Sharma S/o D.N. Sharma, Aged About 39 Years R/o Galaxy Chowk, Nehru Nagar, Bhilai-03, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Driver and Owner of the Offending Vehicle Wagon R Bearing Registration No. CG 07 AP 8090).

¶12

Branch Manager and Office United India Insurance Company Limited Micro Office Paras Complex Infront Of State Bank Of India Gurudwara Station Road Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh ( Insurer of the Offending Vehicle Wagon R Bearing Registration No. CG 07 AP 8090)

¶13

--- Respondents

¶14

____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Amit Nayak, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : None appeared, though served. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate

¶15

12/06/2025

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu PAWAN KUMAR Order On Board JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA

¶17

Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 30.11.2019 passed by Learned

¶18

Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District Durg,

¶19

2 / 8

¶20

Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 164/2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 140, 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 7,00,000/- as compensation in death case.

¶21

Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 24.01.2019, S. Lakshmana Rao was returning home from Baghel Gas Agency Charoda, after his work at 10:00 pm and standing on the side of the main road from Durg to Raipur to cross the G.E. road in front of Panchsheel Nagar. Nonapplicant No.1 (driver) of Wagon R car No. CG07 AP 8090 (henceforth “offending car”) coming from Durg to Raipur driving his car in a rash and negligent manner hit S. Lakshmana Rao and caused accident. In the said accident, S. Lakshmana Rao suffered grievous injuries on both his legs and the back of his head. He was admitted to Sun Shine Multi Specialty Hospital, Bhilai-03, where he remained admitted till 25.01.2019, thereafter he was admitted to Government Hospital, Mekahara, Raipur, where during course of treatment he died on 30.01.2019. The report of the above accident was lodged against the driver of the offending car based upon which crime number 34/19 was registered for alleged offences under Sections 279, 337, 304A IPC.

¶22

Appellants who are widow mother and sister of the deceased S. Lakshmana Rao filed an application under Section 140 and 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking ₹ 21,97,000/- as compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was about 42 years of age, was an able bodied person. At the time of the accident deceased was working as a cylinder delivery boy in Baghel Gas Agency for 5 years and was getting a salary of ₹ 8,000/- per month by which he was supporting the applicants.

¶23

Respondent No. 1 / Non-applicant No. 1 -driver and owner of the offending car submitted his reply to the claim application. While denying all the

¶24

3 / 8

¶25

adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further stated that accident was not caused by non-applicant No.1. With the intention of getting compensation from non-applicant a false report against him was lodged at Bhilai Police Station, and a false application was submitted before the Hon'ble Court. It is stated that on the date of accident all documents related to the offending car were valid and effective he was having a valid and effective driving licence. Offending car was insured with non-applicant No. 2 and in such a situation, liability, if any, to pay the compensation will be of non-applicant No. 2/ Insurance company.

¶26

Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company filed its reply, denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application. It was further stated that alleged accident occurred due to own negligence of deceased because he was trying to cross a busy road like G.E. Road without speculating around. Therefore, there was contributory negligence on the part of deceased. It is further stated that on the date of accident, offending car was being driven in violation of the conditions of insurance policy.

¶27

Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased S. Lakshmana Rao died in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending car by non-applicant 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy, contributory negligence were not found to be proved, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 7,00,000/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application.

¶28

Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. In the pleadings and evidence, claimants have specifically pleaded that

¶29

4 / 8

¶30

the deceased was engaged in the work as cylinder delivery boy with Baghel Gas Agency, Charoda and was earning ₹ 8,000/- per month. The date of accident is 24.01.2019, however, learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income as ₹ 6,000/- per month only which is much less than what the daily wages prevailing in the area or the State. He next contended that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded appropriate amount of compensation under other conventional heads, hence, the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. He pointed out that the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is fastened upon Respondent No. 2/ Insurance Company.

¶31

There is no representation on behalf of Respondent No. 1, though served.

¶32

Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2/ Insurance Company vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants-claimants and would submit that the appellants-claimants failed to prove income of deceased by placing admissible and clinching piece of evidence, hence the Claims Tribunal justified in assessing the income of deceased on notional basis. The amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper in the facts of the case which does not call for any interference. However, learned counsel does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for appellants that the first liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon Respondent No. 2/ Insurance Company.

¶33

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

¶34

Sofar as the first ground raised by learned counsel for appellants-claimants with respect to assessment of income of deceased is concerned, in the claim application claimants have specifically pleaded that the deceased was engaged as cylinder delivery boy with Baghel Gas Agency, Charoda and was earning ₹ 8,000/- per month. Deceased on the date of accident was aged about 42 years . Along with the claim application, appellants-claimants have

¶35

5 / 8

¶36

filed Ext. P-25 to P-35, cash vouchers issued under the seal and signature of M/s Baghel Gas Agency, Charoda, Dist. Durg mentioning an amount of ₹ 8,000/- in the name of deceased as salary from the month of May 2017 till January 2019.

¶37

Claimants have examined Ku. S. Kameshwari as AW-1, she is sister of deceased who stated with regard to nature of employment and the salary/ wages received by her deceased brother from M/s Baghel Gas Agency. One Anil Kumar Verma was also examined as AW-3, who in his deposition before the Claims Tribunal has stated that he is working as Driver with the Baghel Gas Agency and further stated that the deceased S. Lakshmana Rao was working as cylinder delivery boy since last 5 year and earning ₹ 8,000/- per month.

¶38

True it is that the Manager and the owner of M/s Baghel Gas Agency has not been examined. Even if the evidence as brought on record ie., the cash vouchers and in the facts of the case where the Manager and owner of M/s Baghel Gas Agency has not been examined to prove the engagement of deceased as delivery boy and making payment of salary/ wages of ₹ 8,000/per month then also Claims Tribunal could have assessed the income on notional basis keeping in mind date of accident, price index and wage structure prevailing in the area in which deceased was a resident of and could have taken help of notification issued fixing the minimum wages, by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. In record there is no suggestive material about the daily wages of a labourer prevailing in Bhilai area which is an industrial city. In absence of any such evidence, I find it appropriate to assess the income of deceased fixed and notified by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act for B-zone city for unskilled labourer. As per notification, minimum wages fixed by authority for B-zone cities for the period from 01.10.2018 to 31.03.2019 was ₹ 8,400/- per month. Accident is dated 24.01.2019. In above facts of the case, I find it

¶39

6 / 8

¶40

appropriate to assess income of the deceased as pleaded and stated of ₹ 8,000/- per month. It is ordered accordingly.

¶41

Further perusal of impugned award would show that on the date of accident, deceased was aged about 42 years as held by Tribunal based on the document produced before it. Claims Tribunal has rightly added 25% of the assessed income towards future prospects which is in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported i n (2017) 16 SCC 680 w herein Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the issue with respect to award of compensation under the loss of future prospects and has held that in case where the deceased, not in permanent employment, was less than 40 years, there shall be addition of 40% of the assessed income to the income of deceased and in case where the deceased was aged between 40-50 years, there shall be addition of 25% of the assessed income. Accordingly, there shall be addition of 25% of the assessed income, for computing the total yearly income of the deceased. It is ordered accordingly. Claims Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/2 towards personal and living expenses and the application of multiplier of 14 is also correct which is in consonance of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Claims Tribunal has further awarded ₹ 30,000/- consolidated amount towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and ₹ 20,000/- each towards loss of consortium to appellants No. 1 and 2/ claimants No. 1 and 2. Award of compensation under the head of loss of consortium is not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 . Award of compensation should be just and fair and not a bonanza.

¶42

7 / 8

¶43

Perusal of document would further show that deceased met with an accident on 24.01-2019 however he died on 30.01.2019 during course of treatment. Claimants have filed certain documents to show that the claimants have incurred expenses towards medical treatment of deceased on different heads. They have enclosed cash receipts issued from the hospitals from Ext. P-14 to P-19. None of the employees of the hospitals is examined. Though the fact cannot be ignored that in the accident deceased suffered injuries, taken to hospital and during treatment he died at Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Memorial hospital, Raipur.

¶44

In the aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to grant compensation to the appellants-claimants towards the medical bills. The total amount of cash receipts from Ext.P-14 to P-19 comes to ₹ 32,358 ( ₹ 4,510 + ₹ 8,855 + ₹ 2,341 + ₹ 14,152 + ₹ 2,500).

¶45

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

¶46

The monthly income of deceased is taken as ₹ 8,000/-. Upon adding 25% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects, monthly income of deceased on the date of accident will come to ₹ 10,000/- ie. yearly income ₹ 1,20,000/- . After deducting 1/2 towards personal and living expenses, annual loss of dependency will come to ₹ 60,000/-. Upon applying multiplier of 14 to the annual loss of dependency as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) , total loss of dependency will come to ₹ 8,40,000/-. Besides the amount of compensation towards loss of dependency, appellants-claimants shall further be entitled for ₹ 40,000/towards loss of filial consortium to appellant No. 1, ₹ 15,000/- towards loss of

¶47

estate and ₹ 15,000/- towards funeral expenses.

¶48

Particulars	Compensation
A) Annual Loss of income/ dependency =₹	₹8,40,000/-
96,000/-

¶49

8 / 8

¶50

B) Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 25% (₹96,000 x 25% =₹24,000) ₹96,000 +₹24,000=₹1,20,000/-
C) Deduction of 1/2 towards personal and living expenses ( ₹1,20,000 x 1/2=₹
60,000);₹1,20,000 -₹60,000 =₹
60,000/-
D) Multiplier of 14
₹ 60,000x 14 =₹8,40,000/-
Loss of Filial Consortium to Appellant No. 1	₹ 40,000/-
Loss ofestate	₹ 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses	₹ 15,000/-
Medical Expenses	₹ 32,358/-
Total	₹ 9,42,358/-

¶51

Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 9,42,358/- instead of ₹ 7,00,000/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount paid to the appellants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶52

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

¶53

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶54

pwn

Smt. S. Laxmi v. Ravikant Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. S. Laxmi v. Ravikant Sharma

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. Hembati Sahu Vs Virendra Kumar Sahu

Smt. Sondulari Sahu Vs Uttam Kumar Singh Yadav

Khaniyalal Ravte Vs Mohit Kumar Yadav

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Smt.Kaushilya Bai

Dhaleshwar Vs Vishnu Das

Surekha Sahu Vs Vinit Kumar @ Lal Sahu