Branch Manager, Vs Chhaya Samund

¶1

-1-

¶2

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

¶3

2025:CGHC:353

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 68 of 2021

¶7

Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office - 1st Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Rajiv Plaza, Opposite Old Bus Stand Bilaspur, Tehsil and District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Through In-Charge, T.P. Hub., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Chhaya Samund, W/o Shani Samund, Aged About 22 Years R/o Juna Bilaspur, Harijan Mohalla, Behind Life Care Hospital, Police Station - City Kotwali, Tahsil and District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Shani Samund, S/o Dilip Samund, Aged About 25 Years R/o Juna Bilaspur, Harijan Mohalla, Behind Life Care Hospital, Police Station - City Kotwali, Tahsil and District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Claimants)

¶12

3 - Govind Nayak, S/o Shiv Nayak, Aged About 28 Years At Pachpedi, Nayak Mohalla, Police Station - Pachpedi, Tahsil - Masturi, District - Bilaspur (C.G.). Presently R/o Shitala Mandir Ke Pichhe, Jagmal Chowk, Police Station - City Kotwali, Tahsil and District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Driver.

¶13

4 - Chetan Kumar Dama, S/o Shankar Lal Dama, At 34/108, Tikarapara, Dhauli Boda, Police Station - City Kotwali, Tahsil and District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner)

¶14

	... Respondent(s)
For Appellant :	Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. R. N. Pusty, Advocate
For Respondents
No. 1 & 2/Claimants :	Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate with Mr. Robin Aryan Lal, Advocate
For Respondents No.3 & 4 :	None though served

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

-2-

03.01.2025

1. The appellant has challenged the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, in Claim Case No. MACT/202/2018, dated 14.12.2020, whereby compensation of 6,65,000/- along with interest at 9% per annum from₹

¶20

the date of institution of the claim till its realization has been awarded in favor of the claimants.

¶21

1. The facts of the case are as under:-

¶22

A. On 16.02.2018, the deceased, Samayara Samund, aged about 3.5 years, died in an accident, caused by a pickup vehicle bearing registration No. CG-10-AA-7917.

¶23

B. Govind Nayak was the driver of the offending vehicle and Chetan Kumar Dama was the owner whereas the vehicle was insured with the appellant i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

¶24

C. The claimants filed a claim case claiming therein compensation of 9.46₹ lakhs.

¶25

D. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed their written statement and denied the contents of the claim petition.

¶26

E. The insurance company, in its written statement, contended that the parents of the deceased were negligent and the appellant is not liable to pay compensation in the absence of a valid driving license and fitness certificate.

¶27

F. The learned Tribunal, taking into consideration the facts and materials on record, held that the deceased died on account of the accident caused by the offending vehicle. It was further held that the vehicle was not being driven in breach of the insurance policy and awarded 6.65 lakhs as₹ compensation with interest at 9% per annum to the claimants.

¶28

1. Mr. Akash Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted

¶29

-3-

¶30

that the deceased was aged about 3.5 years at the time of the accident. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal committed an error of law in awarding compensation to the tune of 6.65 lakhs. He argued that in a similar₹ case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has awarded a fixed amount of 5 lakh to the₹ claimants. He further contended that the learned Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier of 18 and assessed the notional income of the deceased and therefore findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal are erroneous; thus, he prayed to set aside the award.

¶31

On the other hand, Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the learned Tribunal rightly applied the multiplier of 18 as per Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 considering the age of the deceased. He referred to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and argued that the claimants were entitled to 10% enhancement on conventional heads after every three years. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation.

¶32

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

¶33

1. It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 3.5 years at the time of the

¶34

accident; he died in an accident on 16.02.2018. According to Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appropriate multiplier as per Gokul & ors.

¶35

v.Dhukhuram & anr, 2017 SCC OnLine Chh 1543 would be 15. However, the

¶36

learned Tribunal committed an error in applying the multiplier of 18.

¶37

-4-

¶38

1. Regarding enhancement on conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are entitled to 10% enhancement from the year 2021 to 2024.

¶39

1. Accordingly, the compensation under conventional heads is reassessed as under:-

¶40

Loss of estate: 16,500 (2021), 18,150 (2024) ₹ ₹ Loss of consortium: ₹44,400 (2021), 48,400(2024)₹ Funeral expenses: 16,500 (2021), 18,150 (2024) ₹ ₹

¶41

1. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matter of

¶42

Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali & Anr. v. Shyam Kishore Murmu & Anr. [(2022)

¶43

1 SCC 317] fixed notional income would be 30,000₹ . Applying the multiplier of

¶44

15, the loss of dependency would be -30,000 x 15= 4,50,000 .

¶45

1. The total compensation is recalculated as follows:-

¶46

Loss of dependency: 4,50,000₹

¶47

Loss of estate: 18,150₹

¶48

Loss of consortium: ₹48,400+₹48,400= 96,800₹

¶49

Funeral expenses: ₹18,150

¶50

Total: ₹5,83,100/-

¶51

1. In light of the above calculation, the award is reduced to ₹5,83,100/- . The appellant is directed to pay the balance amount as per this order within a period of 60 days . The rest part of the award passed by the learned Tribunal is hereby

¶52

affirmed.

¶53

1. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part .

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶56

Nadim

Branch Manager, v. Chhaya Samund

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Branch Manager, v. Chhaya Samund

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

Daitari (Died and Deleted) (Through Legal Heirs)) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. through Claim Manager Vs Hardip Singh

M/s Godawari Power and Ispat Limited Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Harnarayan Agrawal Vs Dinesh Kumar Biyar

Smt. Vandana Kocher Vs Romlal Nishad

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Vandana Kochar