Anandi Vs Anil Kumar Barwa

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:32222

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 607 of 2020

¶6

1 - Anandi S/o Late Ratu Aged About 58 Years Occupation Agriculture,

¶7

2 - Smt. Moti W/o Anandi Aged About 55 Years Occupation House Wife, R/o Village - Kathbuda Petala, Post, Police Station And Tahsil - Sitapur, District Surguja, Chhattigarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶8

--- Appellants

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Anil Kumar Barwa S/o Rungatu Ram Barwa Aged About 23 Years Occupation Service, R/o Village Chalta, Police Station And Tahsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, Present Address - Village Mangari, Police Station And Tahsil Batouli, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - The Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. Division OfficePlat No. 768 1st Floor Kosa Badi Niharika Road Korba District- Korba, Chhattisgarh (Insurer)

¶12

….Respondents For Appellants : Ms. Akanksha Vishwakarma on behalf of Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. P. Dutta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

11/07/2025

¶16

Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking Digitally signed by enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident BALRAM BALRAM PRASAD PRASAD DEWANGAN DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.23 10:30:19 +0530 Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District – Sarguja (for short ‘the Claims

¶17

2

¶18

Tribunal’) vide award dated 02.12.2019 passed in Claim Case No.146/2019 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.7,12,600/- as compensation in a death case.

¶19

Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming total compensation of Rs.13,16,000/- under different heads on account of the death of Lakeshwar Yadav, who died in the road accident, pleading therein that on 16/03/2019, Lakeshwar Yadav, as per the instructions of Manoj Agarwal, owner of Neetu Hardware, Sitapur, went to village Baneya to recover the outstanding amount on motor cycle No. CG 15/MF-4160. After completing his work, while returning to Sitapur, reached near the bridge in village Naktimuda, non-applicant No.1 while driving the offending motor cycle bearing No.CG-15/CB/8367 in rash and negligent manner dashed the motor cycle of Lakeshwar Yadav and caused accident. As a result of accident, Lakeshwar Yadav suffered serious injuries on his head, hands, legs and other parts of the body and died on the way while being taken to Ambikapur for treatment. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased was 27 years of young and healthy man, working as salesman in Nitu Hardware, Sitapur and was earing Rs.8,000/- per month. The appellants were dependent upon the deceased and due to his untimely death they are facing great financial crises.

¶20

Non-applicant No.1 filed his reply to the claim application resisting the claim. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, non-applicant No.1 was having valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle and the offending vehicle was duly insured with non-applicant No.2. Non-

¶21

3

¶22

applicant No.3 also filed its reply and denied the averments made in the application. It was pleaded that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in this case in order to get compensation. Claim application was filed on false and fabricated grounds exaggerating the amount of compensation. The offending vehicle was being plied in breach of the conditions of the insurance policy and at the time of accident, applicant No.1 was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the aforesaid vehicle.

¶23

The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.7,12,600/and fastened the liability upon non-applicant No.2/ Insurance Company to indemnify the insured.

¶24

Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation. It is contended that the learned Claims Tribunal assessed the amount of compensation on lower side considering the occupation of the deceased to be one of labourer and assessing his income as Rs.4,500/- per month overlooking the date of accident and the nature of occupation of sales man in hardware shop as pleaded in the claim application. He also submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards loss of consortium to both the claimants, but only for one.

¶25

Learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant. He submits that the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in

¶26

4

¶27

the facts of the case is just and proper, which does not call for any interference.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the records of claim case.

¶29

Perusal of the pleadings made in the claim application would show that the deceased was working in Nitu Hardware Shop, Sitapur as salesman and earning Rs.8,000/- per month, however, could not able to prove the pleadings made in the claim application with regard occupation and income by producing clinching evidence. The learned Claims Tribunal in the aforementioned facts of the case decided to ascertain the income of the deceased on notional basis, however fell into error in assessing the income of the deceased treating him to be laourer as only Rs.4,500/- per month. In the cases where the claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased by producing clinching evidence, it is for the Tribunal and the Court to assess the income of the deceased considering his age, cost of living, price index, wage structure prevailing within the area etc.

¶30

In the case at hand, there is no suggesting piece of evidence to prove the wages given on the date of accident at the place where the deceased was resident of. Hence, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased treating him to be labourer taking help of the minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for that period. As per notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, the minimum wages for the period from 01.10.2018 to 31.03.2019 for unskilled laboure of C-zone area is fixed as Rs.8,120/- per month. However, as

¶31

5

¶32

per pleadings of the claimants in claim application, the income of deceased was Rs.8,000/- per month, therefore, I find it appropriate to accept the pleadings made in the application and assess the income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month. It is ordered accordingly.

¶33

The Claims Tribunal has added 40% of the assessed income towards the loss of future prospects, made deduction of 1/2 towards personal living expenses as the deceased was unmarried and further applied the multiplier of 17, which in the opinion of this Court has been correctly added and applied. The learned Claims Tribunal has though awarded Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, which is also to the tune of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. The learned Claims Tribunal fell into error in not awarding compensation under the head of loss of consortium to both the claimants, who are parents of the deceased. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, the parents are also entitled for compensation under the head of loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. Therefore, it is held that both the claimants are entitled for compensation under the head of loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly.

¶34

Learned Claims Tribunal has also awarded penal interest of 9% in the event the compensation is not deposited within one month, which is not sustainable in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

¶35

6

¶36

case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Keshav Bahadur & Ors., reported in (2004) 2 SCC 370 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-13 has held as under :-

¶37

“13. Though Section 110CC of the Act (corresponding to Section 171 of the New Act) confers a discretion on the Tribunal to award interest, the same is meant to be exercised in cases where the claimant can claim the same as a matter of right. In the above background, it is to be judged whether a stipulation for higher rate of interest in case of default can be imposed by the Tribunal. Once the discretion has been exercised by the Tribunal to award simple interest on the amount of compensation to be awarded at a particular rate and from a particular date, there is no scope for retrospective enhancement for default in payment of compensation. No express or implied power in this regard can be culled out from Section 110CC of the Act or Section 171 of the new Act. Such a direction in the award for retrospective enhancement of interest for default in payment of the compensation together with interest payable thereon virtually amounts to imposition of penalty which is not statutorily envisaged and prescribed. It is, therefore directed that the rate of interest as awarded by the High Court shall alone be applicable till payment, without the stipulation for higher rate of interest being enforced, in the manner directed by the Tribunal.”

¶38

For the forgoing discussion, the penal interest @ 9% is not sustainable and it is hereby set-aside.

¶39

On the basis of above, the compensation calculated by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :-

¶40

7

¶41

SN	Head		Amount(in Rs.).
1.	Annual income	:	8,000 x 12 = 96,000.00
2.	Addition of 40% towards future prospects	:	96,000.00 + 38,400.00 = 1,34,400.00
3.	1/2 deduction towards personal expenses	:	1,34,400.00 – 67,200.00 = 67,200.00
4.	Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 17	:	49,224 x 17= 11,42,400.00
5.	For loss of filial consortium to the appellants Rs.40,000/- each(40,000 x 2)	:	80,000.00
6.	For funeral expenses	:	15,000.00
7.	For loss of estate	:	15,000.00
	Grand Total	:	12,52,400.00

¶42

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.12,52,400.00. Any amount paid to the appellants as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶43

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

¶44

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶45

Balram

Anandi v. Anil Kumar Barwa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anandi v. Anil Kumar Barwa

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

Kripalu Yadav Vs Pradeep Kumar Yadav

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

Premchand Shukla Vs Sariful Ansari

Ghanshyam Vs Ramayan Singh

Tokeshwar Ram Sahu @ Takeshwar Vs Kamta Prasad Sahu

Nemu Yadav Vs Kamta Prasad Sahu