Smt. Gurmeet Kaur Vs Ashok Kumar Sharma

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:35267

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 69 of 2020

¶6

1 - Smt. Gurmeet Kaur W/o Late Shri Bhola Singh Aged About 50 Years By Caste Sikkh, R/o Village Patthalgaon, Block No. 6, Thana And Tahsil Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh]

¶7

2 - Mangu Singh S/o Late Shri Bhola Singh Aged About 24 Years By Caste Sikkh, R/o Village Patthalgaon, Block No. 6, Thana And Tahsil Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Pyare Lal Sharma R/o Village Parbol, Thana Parbol, District Ludhiyana (Punjab) At Present Residence Of Piska Turning Ranchi (Jharkhand) (Driver Of Vehicle No. Cg - 04-E-6874), Jharkhand

¶11

2 - Devendra Singh S/o Shri Balbinder Singh R/o Tatibandh Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. At Present Residence Of C/o M/s Dashmesh Road Carrier Itaki Road, Ranchi, District Ranchi (Jharkhand). (Owner Of Vehicle No. Cg-04-E-6874), District : Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶12

3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Rannchi Kachahari Road, Shahod Chowk Ranchi (Jharkhand) Through Nearest Branch The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager Divisional Office Satigudi Chowk Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle No. Cg-04-E6874), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Appellants : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate

¶15

SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY

¶16

2

¶17

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶18

Order On Board

¶19

23/07/2025

¶20

None for the Respondents No. 1 & 2, though served.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is joint and several upon the NonApplicants i.e. the driver, owner and the Insurance Company. The offending vehicle on the date of accident was insured with the Nonapplicant No. 3 and hence, first liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company. Hence, this appeal may be heard finally at motion stage.

¶22

Submission of the counsel for appellants is not opposed by the counsel for the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company.

¶23

In view of the above, with the consent of parties, this case is heard finally at motion stage.

¶24

This appeal is filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 25.09.2019 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patthalgaon, District – Jashpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 03/2019.

¶25

Death of Bhola Singh due to motor accidental injuries is not in dispute. As per the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal, breach of policy conditions was not found to be proved and therefore, this Court is not adverting to the facts of the case and is only dealing with the grounds raised seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the date of accident is 06.12.2008. Learned Claims Tribunal awarded meagre sum of

¶27

3

¶28

compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- assessing income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month only. He contended that the Claims Tribunal fell into error in not awarding compensation under the future prospects and further, compensation under the head of loss of consortium is not awarded to the Applicant/Claimant No. 2. Hence, the amount of compensation may be enhanced suitably.

¶29

On the other hand, learned counsels for the Non-applicant No. 3/Insurance Company opposes the submission of counsel for the appellants/claimants and would submit that the accident is of 06.12.2008 and the Claims Tribunal taking note of the date of accident assessed income of the deceased reasonably upon appreciation of the evidence and facts available on record. Awarded just and proper amount of compensation which does not call for any interference.

¶30

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

¶31

Perusal of the record would show that in claim application, date of accident is mentioned as 06.12.2008, occupation of the deceased in claim application is mentioned as running a Dhaba (Restaurant) at Rairunma Khurd, District – Raigarh and was earning Rs. 15,000 – 20,000/- per month. However, except the pleading in claim application and self-serving statement of the witness i.e. Smt. Gurmeet Kaur (AW1), no other documentary evidence has been brought on record of running Dhaba (Restaurant) by the deceased. In the aforementioned facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal justified in proceeding to assess income of deceased on notional basis, considering date of accident and treating the deceased to be an Unskilled Labourer. The learned Claims Tribunal justified in considering

¶32

4

¶33

the minimum-wages as fixed by the competent authority for the period from 01.10.2009 to 31.03.2010 and therefore, I do not find any error in the income of the deceased assessed as Rs. 4,500/-. Accordingly, it is affirmed .

¶34

Further, perusal of the record would show that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly added 25% of the assessed income towards the future prospects and applied deduction of 1/3rd, multiplier of 14 to compute the amount of compensation which is to the tune of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 which does not call for any interference.

¶35

Learned Claims Tribunal further awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards the loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards the funeral expenses as also, Rs. 40,000/- towards the loss of spousal consortium to the Applicant/Claimant No. 1 which is also according to the decision in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) . Award of consortium is further clarified by Hon’ble Surpeme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram , reported in (2018) 8 SCC. In the above case, Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the types of consortium as spousal consortium for widow/widower, parental consortium to children and filial consortium to parents. In the case at hand, the appellants/claimants are wife and child of the deceased and therefore, they are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of spousal and parental consortium (total Rs. 80,000/-) respectively. It is ordered accordingly.

¶36

5

¶37

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Pranay Sethi (Supra) has observed that the compensation awarded under other conventional heads like loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium is to be increased by 10% in every 03 years and therefore, I find it appropriate to increase 10% in the amount of compensation awarded under other conventional heads. It is ordered accordingly.

¶38

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

¶39

Claimants are entitled for Rs. 6,30,000/- towards the loss of dependency, Rs. 16,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 16,500/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 44,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. Apart from the above, the Claimant No. 2 will also be entitled for Rs. 44,000/- towards the loss of parental consortium. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 7,51,000/- (6,30,000 + 44,000 + 44,000 + 16,500 + 16,500). This enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶40

Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants No. 1 & 2 as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above.

¶41

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

¶42

Certified copy as per rules.

¶43

Sd/-d/-- /-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶44

Dey

Smt. Gurmeet Kaur v. Ashok Kumar Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Gurmeet Kaur v. Ashok Kumar 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohokumari Vs Jitender Singh

Dipak Kumar Sahu Vs Mayank Sharma

Priyanka Paikara Vs Jahid Khan

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Padum Patel

Branch Manager, Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs Brihaspati Bai

Branch Manager, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Vs Mst. Hinda @ Chhinda Bai