Smt. Sugantin Bai Vs Lokesh Das Manikpuri

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:33075

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 696 of 2018

¶6

1 - Smt. Sugantin Bai W/o Late Ankalu Das Aged About 41 Years R/o Bhangaram Chowk, Mulmula, Tehsil And District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - Ku. Sangeeta Manikpuri D/o Late Ankalu Das Aged About 25 Years R/o Bhangaram Chowk, Mulmula, Tehsil And District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh

¶8

3 - Ajay Das Manikpuri S/o Late Ankalu Das Aged About 20 Years R/o Bhangaram Chowk, Mulmula, Tehsil And District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Lokesh Das Manikpuri S/o Trilochan Das Aged About 27 Years R/o Mulmula, P.S. Kondagaon, Tehsil And District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh (Driver), District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - Smt. Babita Jain W/o Mr. Nandkishore Jain R/o Vikas Nagar, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh (Owner), District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - Branch Manager Chola M.S.General Insurance Company Ltd. 2nd Floor, Near Simran Tower Pandari Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

2

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arvind Pandey, Advocate.

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board

¶18

(15.07.2025)

¶19

This appeal arises out of the award dated 16.02.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kondagaon District Kondagaon (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 73/2017 awarding a compensation of Rs.5,54,000/with interest @ 9% per annum, in favour of the appellants/claimants for their irreparable loss.

¶20

In the present case, it is an admitted and undisputed fact that on the date of accident, Respondent No. 2 is the registered owner/insured and Respondent No. 3 is the insurer of Bus bearing Registration No. OR 24 A 6935 (hereinafter referred as ‘offending vehicle’).

¶21

The averment in the claim petition, in brief, is that On 03.08.2017 at around 6:30 A.M., the respondent no. 1, while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner near Village Mumula, Atal Chowk, P.S. Kondagaon, collided with the bicycle of the deceased Ankalu Das. As a result of the accident, Ankalu Das sustained severe injuries and was taken to the hospital, where he succumbed during the course of treatment. An FIR bearing No. 175/17 was registered under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/181 and 3, 5/180 of the Motor Vehicles Act against respondent no. 1. The deceased's wife

¶22

3

¶23

and children (appellants) filed a claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of 53,54,000,₹ stating that the deceased was working as a mason (Raj Mistri) and earned 15,000 per month, with the appellants being entirely dependent₹ on him. The offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3.

¶24

The Tribunal, by its award dated 16.02.2018, partly allowed the claim and awarded 5,54,000 with 9% annual interest, directing respondent₹ no. 3 to pay the amount and recover it from respondent Nos. 1 and 2 due to breach of policy conditions. The appellants have challenged the award, contending that the Tribunal erroneously determined the deceased’s age as 50 instead of 42, and income as 5,000 per month₹ instead of 15,000, thereby applying incorrect multiplier and failing to₹ award just compensation under various lawful heads. Therefore, the appellants/claimants preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation amount.

¶25

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a joint reply denying the claims but admitted that the vehicle was insured by respondent No.3. The insurance company accepted the fact of insurance coverage but contended that the driver did not hold a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident and therefore denied liability.

¶26

When the claim application for compensation was filed by the present appellants/claimants of deceased before the Claims Tribunal against the driver, owner and insurance company of the alleged vehicle, the Tribunal has taken income of the deceased as Rs 5,000/- per month

¶27

4

¶28

i.e. Rs.60,000/- per annum in absence of any documentary proof of income. The deceased was aged about 50 years and the claimants are the wife and children of the deceased so the future prospect was 10% as the age of the deceased was between 40 – 50 years, therefore, the further prospect was Rs.60,000/- x 10/100 = Rs.6,000/- and the deduction was 1/3^rd towards personal expenses i.e. Rs.22,000/- hence the annual income of the deceased was taken as Rs.44,000/-, after applying multiplier of 11, the total loss of dependency calculated to Rs. 4,84,000/- and on other heads Rs.70,000/- has been calculated and awarded total compensation of Rs.4,84,000/- (Rs. 4,84,000/- + Rs.70,000/- = Rs.5,54,000/-) with interest @ 9% per annum, in favour of the appellants/claimants. Hence, this appeal for enhancement.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. The learned Claims Tribunal has committed a grave legal error in disbelieving the testimony of the claimants’ witnesses, who were duly examined in support of their pleadings. The rejection of their statements amounts to a failure in appreciating the evidence on record. The learned Claims Tribunal erred in holding that the deceased earned a monthly income of only ₹5,000/-. On the contrary, the correct monthly income of the deceased ought to have been assessed at 15,000/-. In the present case, a future prospect₹ would be considered to be 25%, in light of the precedents set by this Hon’ble Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi

¶30

5

¶31

and Others1 , . The learned Claims Tribunal further committed a serious error in deducting one-third towards the personal expenses of the deceased. It ought to have considered that the deceased left behind a widow, two children, making a total of three dependents. Accordingly, the deduction towards personal expenses should have been restricted to one-fourth as held by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (surpa), as well as in Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore Dan and Others,2 and New India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Gopali and Others,3 . The findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal are perverse and contrary to law, and therefore liable to be set aside. The Tribunal’s conclusions run contrary to the documentary evidence and oral testimony on record, reflecting a failure to properly consider the facts in their correct perspective. The claimants warranting suitable enhancement of the award. In light of the above, the appellants respectfully pray that the impugned award be set aside and the claim be enhanced as per the submissions made herein.

¶32

No representation was made on behalf of Respondents No. 1 & 2.

¶33

On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company that in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no interference of this Court and no further enhancement is required to be made, therefore,

¶34

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶35

2 (2013) 7 SCC 476

¶36

3 (2012) 12 SCC 192

¶37

6

¶38

the appeal filed by the claimants is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

I Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶40

In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza.

¶41

Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.5,54,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

¶42

As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/-. per month from his business, but no documentary evidence in support thereof has been produced, but it cannot be said that the deceased was not earning anything from his work. Therefore, in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of the deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, wage structure prevailing on the date of accident, price index and cost of living etc. Upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate that the trial Court has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as minimum wages, at the relevant time of accident i.e. 03.08.2017. The annual income of the deceased is Rs.60,000/- per annum. As per Pranay Sethi (supra) .

¶43

The deceased was aged about 50 years and was married and the

¶44

7

¶45

claimants are the wife and children of the deceased so in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and 4 others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another , and Pranay Sethi (supra) , after adding 10% towards future prospects i.e. Rs.60,000/- + Rs.6,000/- (Rs.60,000/- x 10/100 = Rs.66,000/-), the deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3^rd which comes to Rs.22,000/- (Rs.66,000/3 = Rs.22,000/-), the annual income comes to Rs.44,000/- Further, considering the age of the deceased multiplier of 11 would be applicable, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.5,54,000/-. The claimants are further entitled for loss of estate Rs. 18,000/- (10% increase in every three years), for funeral expenses Rs. 18,000/- (10% increase in every three years), pain and suffering Rs.40,000/- and as per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu,5 the claimants are further entitled for loss of consortium Rs. 48,000/- (10% increase in every three years) each i.e. Rs.1,44,000/-. Therefore, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs.7,04,000/-. In light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors6, this Court reassesses the compensation in the following manner:-

¶46

S.No.	Heads	Calculation
01	Towards loss of dependency	Rs.4,84,000 /-
02	Towards loss of estate	Rs. 18,000/-
03	Funeral Expenses	Rs. 18,000/-
04	Towards loss of consortium to all the	Rs. 1,44,000/-

¶47

4 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶48

5 AIR Online 2018 SC 189

¶49

6 (2011) 1 SCC 343

¶50

8

¶51

three claimants @ Rs.48,000/- (with 10% increment in every three years) Pain and Suffering Rs.40,000/- Total Rs.7,04,000/-

¶52

Accordingly, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs.7,04,000/- from Rs.5,54,000/- . Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs.1,50,000/- , which shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal (9% p.a.) from the date of claim petition till realization.

¶53

As a result, the appeal is allowed in part . The award dated

¶54

16.02.2018 is modified to the extent indicated above. Rest of the terms and conditions of the Tribunal’s award remain intact.

¶55

Certified Copy as per rules.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

( Amitendra Kishore Prasad ) Digitally JUDGE ABHIGYA signed by SAXENA ABHIGYA SAXENA

¶58

Gopal Singh/Saxena

Smt. Sugantin Bai v. Lokesh Das Manikpuri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sugantin Bai v. Lokesh Das Manikpuri

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

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jamsida Biwi

Jagannath Prasad Vs Rakhi Ram

Jaimangal Vs Devkunwar

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pitamber Das

Smt. Shringarkali Agrawal Vs Jeevrakhan Sahu

Smt. Fuleshwari Nishad Vs Moh.Nayeem