United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Gujeshwari

¶1

Digitally signed YOGESH by YOGESHTIWARI TIWARI Date: 2025.07.14 11:35:11 +0530

1

2025:CGHC:31435

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 593 of 2018

¶7

United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Tara Complex, Power House, G.E. Road, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle No. CG-07-ZS-6594) (Non-Applicant No.3)

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Smt. Gujeshwari W/o Shri Jugesh Prasad Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Mouhari Maroda, B.R.P. Chowk, P.S. Newai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Applicant No.1)

¶11

2 - Jugesh Prasad Singh S/o Shri Beni Singh Aged About 55 Years R/o Mouhari Maroda, B.R.P. Chowk, P.S. Newai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Applicant No.2)

¶12

3 - Ajay Nirmalkar S/o Ramratan Nirmalkar Aged About 32 Years R/o Santoshi Para, Camp-2 Bhilai, P.S. Chhawni, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle No.CG-07-ZS-6954) (Non-Applicant No.1)

¶13

4 - M.S.Jagannath S/o Shri M. Jogarao Aged About 50 Years R/o L.I.G.2/2427, M.P. Housing Board, Industrial Estate, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle No. CG07-ZS-6594) (Non-Applicant No.2)

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶16

For Appellant	: Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate
For Respondents No.1 & 2	: Mr. Purendra Khichariya, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 & 4	: None

¶17

2

¶18

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

¶19

Judgment on Board

¶20

08.07.2025

¶21

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 06.02.2018 passed by the learned 6^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Durg (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim No. No.126/2015 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimants.

¶22

2. Brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that, on 22.09.2013, at about 9.30 PM, Vikash Singh (since deceased) going Tanki Maroda from Station Maroda on the motorcycle of his friend, at that relevant time, one vehicle driven by respondent No.3 rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle of Vikash Singh, due to which he fell down and became unconscious. He was taken to Government Hospital, Utai and thereafter B.S.P. Hospital Sector-9, where by the doctor declared him dead.

¶23

3. The claimants being parents of deceased Vikash Singh have filed a claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘M.V. Act’) claiming Rs.25,96,400/- as compensation under various heads pleading therein that at the time of accident, deceased was aged about 23 years and earning of his livelihood.

¶24

4. Respondents No.4 and 5/non-applicants No. 1 and 2 have filed their written statement denying the fact of accident and pleaded that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the

¶25

3

¶26

Insurance Company, as such the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation would be upon the Insurance Company.

¶27

5. The appellant/Insurance Company filed its written statement in which it has denied the contents of the petition and further stated that the accident had not occurred from the offending vehicle and there was head on collusion between the two vehicles. It has been further pleaded that there was violation of breach of policy conditions, as such Insurance Company was not liable to pay any amount of compensation.

¶28

6. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, Claims Tribunal held that the deceased was aged about 24 years on the date of accident and earning Rs.4,500/- per month. While adding 40% towards future prospects, deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses and after applying the multiplier of 18, awarded an amount of Rs.9,07,200/- towards loss of dependecy. Learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs.30,000/- towards other conventional heads, as such awarded total compensation of Rs.9,37,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization and fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the driver, owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle.

¶29

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd amount towards living and personal expenses of the deceased because the

¶30

4

¶31

deceased was bachelor, as such, in view of the rulings rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transportation Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the deduction should be 1/2. He further submits that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as there was head on collision of the two vehicles. It has been contended that the offending vehicle has wrongly mentioned in the accident because in the inquest, different vehicle number has been mentioned and thereafter, number of offending vehicle has been mentioned. As such, appeal be allowed and adequate amount of compensation be awarded to the claimants.

¶32

8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2/claimants submits that after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Claims Tribunal has passed just compensation to the claimants, which needs no interference.

¶33

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully.

¶34

10. The legal position now stands settled by virtue of the law declared by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra). It stands affirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors., AIR 2017 SC 5157.

¶35

11. Before the learned Claims Tribunal, claimants have pleaded loss of income of deceased to Rs.22,46,400/-, but has not produced any evidence with respect to salary or income of deceased. The claimants have failed to prove income as pleaded in their claim

¶36

5

¶37

application, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of case, income of deceased was to be assessed on notional basis by the Claims Tribunal. The date of accident was 22.09.2013, therefore, looking to minimum wages rate prevailing in the Districts and State, it will be proper to hold engagement of deceased in unskilled labour and his income to be assessed to Rs.4,500/- per month i.e. Rs.54,000/- per annum as rightly reckoned by the Claims Tribunal. Going by the rulings rendered by the Apex Court as cited above, in the case of persons of less than 40 years of age with no fixed income, 40% of the income has to be added for fixing the future prospects, which comes to Rs.75,600/- per annum.

¶38

12. Learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. In the present case, the deceased was bachelor, as such the proper deduction would be 1/2. After deducting 1/2 towards personal and living expenses, annual income of deceased comes to Rs.37,800/-. After applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of income of deceased comes to Rs.6,80,400/-.

¶39

13. The scope of 'consortium' has been subsequently explained by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 . It can be of three types; Parental consortium (payable to children because of the death of parents); Spousal consortium (payable to the surviving spouse because of the death of the partner) and Filial consortium (payable to the parents because of the death of

¶40

6

¶41

children). This being the position, the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards loss of consortium. Further, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is payable towards funeral expenses in view of the law declared in Pranay Sethi (supra). As per the decision rendered in Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants/claimants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Further, 10% enhancement in every three years is also required to be given in respect of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium.

¶42

14. On the basis of above recalculation, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:-

¶43

Sl. No.	Head	Calculation	Awarded amount
1.	Income of deceased @ Rs.4,500/- per month	Rs.54,000/- per annum
2.	40% of (1) above to be added as future prospects	54,000 + 21,600 = Rs.75,600/-
3.	1/2 of (2) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased	75,600 / 2 = Rs.37,800/-	Rs.37,800/-
4.	Compensation after multiplier of 18 applied	37,800 x 18	Rs.6,80,400/-
5.	Towards loss of estate	15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years	Rs.18,000/-
6.	Towards loss of consortium to all the two claimants @ Rs. 40,000/-	40,000 + 8,000 = 48,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years	Rs.96,000/-
7.	Funeral Expenses	15,000 + 3,000 with increase of	Rs.18,000/-

¶44

7

¶45

10% in every
three years
Total	Rs.8,12,400/-
Compensation
Awarded

¶46

15. In the said circumstance, the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is reduced by Rs.1,24,600/- and the claimants shall get total compensation of Rs.8,12,400/- (9,37,000 – 1,24,600) along with interest @ 9% per annum on the total amount of compensation with effect from the date of filing the claim application till its realization. The amount already deposited under the impugned award shall be adjustable.

¶47

16. The other grounds raised by the appellant/Insurance Company are not tenable.

¶48

17. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above and rest thereof shall remain intact.

¶49

18. Record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶52

Yogesh

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Gujeshwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Gujeshwari

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. Gulabi Baug Vs Ravi Thomas

Jubeda Begam Vs Dharamjaigarh Public H.s. School

Dhanmet Vs Atwari

Smt. Sarita Panigrahi Vs Smt. Rukani

Minor Barun Nayak Vs Manoranjan Pradhan

Durgesh Kumar @ Rinku Soni Vs Ganesh Ram Kshatriya