Ashok Prasad Tamrakar Vs Md. Sajid Ansari

¶1

Page No.1

¶2

2025:CGHC:15410 NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 624 of 2020

¶5

Ashok Prasad Tamrakar S/o Jageshwar Sao Aged About 48 Years By Caste Thathera, R/o Sakin Near Bazardand, Kunkuri Tehsil And Police Station Kunkuri District Jashpur Chhattisgarh,

¶6

Pooja Tamrakar D/o Ashok Prasad Tamrakar Aged About 23 Years By Caste Thathera, R/o Sakin Near Bazardand, Kunkuri Tehsil And Police Station Kunkuri District Jashpur Chhattisgarh,

¶7

Nihal Tamrakar D/o Ashok Prasad Tamrakar Aged About 18 Years By Caste Thathera, R/o Sakin Near Bazardand, Kunkuri Tehsil And Police Station Kunkuri District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Appellant(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

Md. Sajid Ansari S/o Late Naeem Ansari Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Sakin Ajirma, Near Central School Police Station Jainagar District Surajpur Chhattisgarh .......Driver,

¶11

Saiyyad Asgar Ali S/o Saiyyad Ahmad Ali Aged About 37 Years R/o Sakin New Bus Stand Pandari, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ........Owner,

¶12

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Tara Complex, G. E. Road, Power House Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh ........Insurer,

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Appellant : Mr. Nitesh Sahu on behalf of Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate

¶15

For Respondent No.1 & 2 For Respondent No.3

¶16

: None.

¶17

: Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Adv.

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board

¶19

02/04/2025

¶20

Digitally signed by NISHA NISHA DUBEY Date: DUBEY 2025.04.09 09:48:53 +0530

¶21

Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kunkuri, District Jashpur (for

¶22

Page No.2

¶23

short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 27.11.2019 passed in MACT Case No.12/2018.

¶24

Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 12.05.2017 the Seema @ Sunita Devi (since deceased) was returning from Raipur to her home situated in village village Kunkuri in a bus of Royal Bus bearing registration number CG04-EA-0364. Driver of bus drove it at high speed, rashly and negligently which resulted in overturning in a field beside the road near village Lahpatra due to which she sustained grievous injuries on her stomach, chest, left hand and other parts of the body. She was taken to Lakhanpur Health Centre where she was given primary treatment and thereafter looking to seriousness of injuries sustained by her, she was referred to Holy Cross Hospital, Ambikapur. Thereafter, said Seema was hospitalized in Jeevan Jyoti Hospital, Ambikapur, where she died during treatment on 13.05.2017. In connection with the said accident, First Information Report No.89/2017 dated 01.06.2017 was registered in Police Station Lakhanpur under Sections 279, 304A IPC against non-applicant No.1.

¶25

Non-applicant No.1 & 2 / respondents No.1 & 2 herein did not appear before the Claims Tribunal and therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte.

¶26

Non-applicant No.3- Insurance Company submitted its written statement denying the averments made in application. On the date of accident, non-applicant No.1 was not having valid and effective driving license to drive offending vehicle and further,

¶27

Page No.3

¶28

the offending vehicle was plied on road without there being valid permit and fitness. Since the offending vehicle was plied in violation of essential conditions of insurance policy, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured.

¶29

The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the pleadings and evidence placed on record (oral and documentary both) by the respective parties has arrived at the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver; there was no violation of any conditions of insurance policy; since the claimant failed to prove income and employment of deceased as per law, therefore, treating the deceased to be a housewife assessed her monthly income as Rs.3750/- (Rs.125/- per day) and consequently, allowed claim application in part; awarded compensation of Rs.5,69,116/along with interest @ 9% p.a. and fastened liability upon nonapplicant No.3/respondent No.3 herein to satisfy the impugned award.

¶30

Learned counsel for the claimants/appellant submits that the claimants in their evidence have specifically stated that on the date of accident, deceased was running a general store in the name and style of ‘Maa Shringarika General Store’ and earning Rs.20,000/- per month, however, the Claims Tribunal recording a finding that income of deceased is not proved as per law, has assessed monthly income of deceased at Rs.3750/- on notional basis. He submits that in absence of documentary proof of income of deceased, income should have been

¶31

Page No.4

¶32

assessed as per minimum wage fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. He submits that the deceased was married and there are three family members, who are appellants before this Court, therefore, the Claims Tribunal ought to have deducted one-third in stead of one-half towards personal and living expenses of deceased. He further submits that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of loss of consortium. Hence, he prays that this appeal may be allowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably.

¶33

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 argues that the amount of compensation as assessed and granted by the learned Claims Tribunal does not call for any interference. He submits that in case the amount of compensation is enhanced, interest for the period of delay in filing this appeal may not be awarded.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of Claims Tribunal.

¶35

As regards the income of deceased, the appellants had though asserted that deceased was running a general store and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but no documentary evidence had been adduced to substantiate such claim. Therefore, relying upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of D r. Balram Prasad vs Dr. Kunal Saha and others , reported in (2014) 1 SCC 384 , the Claims Tribunal has proceeded to assessed the compensation by treating the deceased to be a housewife. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with

¶36

Page No.5

¶37

approach adopted by the Claims Tribunal in assessing compensation payable to the claimants. However, monthly income of Rs.3,750/- as assessed by the Claims Tribunal on the premise that the deceased being a house wife was rendering domestic services, is on lower side.

¶38

A house-wife is required to perform many duties, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa Versus State of Bihar , reported in (2001) 8 SCC 197 . Value of services of a house-wife cannot be equated with that of a daily wager. Services rendered by a housewife are multifarious. She renders invaluable services in her various facets/roles in a home. She not only takes care of all the requirements of her husband, children and other family members by preparing food, washing clothes etc. but she is a person who is available round the clock to all the family members. In this manner, a domestic servant / maidservant cannot be a substitute for a wife or a mother to render selfless services to her husband and children.

¶39

In the case of Rajendra Singh & ors vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors, reported in (2020) 7 SCC 256 , the Apex Court ascertained the Notional Income of the deceased housewife, who expired in a motor vehicle accident dated 25.12.2012, as Rs. 5,000/-. Recently, in case of Arvind Kumar Pandey & ors vs. Girish Pandey , reported in (2025) 2 SCC 145 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled that the direct or indirect income of a homemaker cannot be less than the prevailing Minimum Wages of the State at the time of the accident.

¶40

Page No.6

¶41

The Division Bench of this Court in MAC No.334/2014 (SR Chaturvedi & ors vs. Ranjit Choudhary & ors) while dealing with identical issue has held thus:-

¶42

“14. In the instant case, the date of accident is 30.01.2011. Even if, it is taken that the deceased was a housewife, but then the work performed by a housewife for his family cannot be considered to be less than the income of an ordinary manual labour.”

¶43

Thus, it is now well established that notional income of the deceased housewife, who has been rendering gratuitous services to the household, may be taken not less than prevailing Minimum Wages as notified by the State, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶44

In case at hand, accident took place on 12.5.2017. Keeping in mind the above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court; the multifarious role that a housewife discharges and considering the minimum wages notified for unskilled worker by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act for ‘C’ category cities for the period from 01.04.2017 to 30.9.2017, which was Rs.7,800/- it would be just and equitable to assess the notional income of the deceased to be Rs.7,800/- per month.

¶45

Addition of 40% towards future prospects and multiplier of 15 has correctly applied by the Claims Tribunal. However, deduction of one-half towards personal expenses of deceased is not as per law settled. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & anr, reported in (2009)

¶46

Page No.7

¶47

6 SCC 121 has held that where number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth is to be deducted from the assessed income of deceased towards personal and living expenses. In case at hand, there are three claimants, who are appellants before this Court. Hence, in my opinion, the Claims Tribunal has committed an error in determining the dependency of the deceased by deducting 1/2, which should have been at 1/3^rd . It is ordered accordingly.

¶48

The Claims Tribunal while assessing compensation payable to the claimants have not awarded any amount to the claimants/ appellants herein under the head loss of consortium. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited versus Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others , reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , a husband who lose his wife in a road accident is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium and the children are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each upon premature death of a parent. As appellant No.1 is the husband and appellants No.2 and 3 are children of deceased, who died in a road accident, therefore, they are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of loss of consortium. It is ordered accordingly.

¶49

Believing the medical documents and bills filed by appellants as Ex.A-19, 20, 21 and 30, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.26616/- towards medical expenses as against total

¶50

Page No.8

¶51

claim of Rs.28,217/-. The Claims Tribunal disallowed Rs.1600/out of total bill amount mentioned in Final Bill marked as Ex.A29. Perusal of Bill Ex.P-29 would show that there was discount of Rs.1600/- and the said amount was not paid by claimants. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal has corrected deducted Rs.1600/- and it needs no interference. Thus, the compensation granted under the head of medical expenses is hereby maintained.

¶52

The Claims Tribunal has disallowed claim of Rs.36244/- for the damages of articles purchased by deceased from Raipur market on the ground that claimants failed to prove the purchase bills of Ex.A-33 & 34 by examining the trader or shopkeeper who had issued the same. It is well settled that the documents relied upon by a party in support of his case is required to be proved and mere filing of the same is not sufficient to prove its content. Under these circumstances, rejection of claim of appellants for damages of articles purchased is based on proper appreciation of material available on record and the same needs no interference.

¶53

For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants.

¶54

Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.7,800/- per month, as held in preceding paragraph, and after adding 40% towards future prospects, monthly income of deceased would come to Rs.10,920/- (7800+3120) and annual income would be Rs.1,31,040/- (10920x12). After deducting one-third towards

¶55

Page No.9

¶56

personal and living expenses of deceased, as held above, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.87,360/-. Applying multiplier of 15, as rightly done by the Claims Tribunal, the loss of dependency would be Rs.13,10,400/(87360x15). Besides this, appellant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium; appellants No.2 & 3 are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium being children of deceased. In addition to aforesaid amount, appellants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.14,60,400/- (1310400 + 120000 + 30,000) recoverable from the respondents, jointly and severally. This additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶57

21.Any amount already paid to claimants/ appellants as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above.

¶58

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

¶59

Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶60

nisha

Ashok Prasad Tamrakar v. Md. Sajid Ansari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Prasad Tamrakar v. Md. Sajid 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

Preeti Yadav Vs Sunil @ Lete Uraon

S. Venket Jagannath Vs Kanshi Ram Pal

Monika Giri Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Smt. Tapeshwari Vs Harjindar Singh

Nirbhay Ram Mandavi Vs Kannan @ Kanam

Dhanau Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh