Arjun Vs Shivprakash Manikpuri

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:40266

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 764 of 2020

¶6

1 - Arjun S/o Late Sainath, Aged About 62 Years R/o Village - Dadgaon, Post - Udari, Police Station And Tahsil - Lundra, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - Jayprakash Manikpuri S/o Arjun, Aged About 36 Years Cultivator And Daily Wager Employee, R/o Village - Dadgaon, Post - Udari, Police Station And Tahsil - Lundra, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - Shivprakash Manikpuri S/o Shri Arjun, Aged About 31 Years Occupation - Cultivator, R/o Village - Dadgaon, Post - Udari, Police Station And Tahsil - Lundra, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Subas Das S/o Chainsai Das, Aged About 45 Years Occupation - Cultivator, R/o Village - Dadgaon, Post - Udari, Police Station And Tahsil - Lundra, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Branch Manager, I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office I.C.I.C.I. House 414, Veera Sawarkar Road, Near Siddhi Vinayak Mandir, Prabhadevi Mumbai, Through Branch Manager, I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Ground Floor, Commercial Building, Devendra Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Appellants : Ms. K. Sandhya Rao, Advocate on behalf of Mr. S.A. Ansari, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate

¶15

Digitally SHUBHAM signed by DEY SHUBHAM DEY

¶16

2

¶17

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

¶18

Order On Board

¶19

11/08/2025

¶20

Appellants/Claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 09.01.2020 passed by the learned 7^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District – Sarguja (C.G.) in MACT Case No. 99/2019.

¶21

The motor accidental death of late Smt. Farharo due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. Hero Honda Passion Pro bearing registration no. CG 15 DG 4260 by the Non-Applicant No. 1, owned by the Non-Applicant No. 2 and insured by the Non-Applicant No. 3 is not in dispute. Liability fastened upon the Non-Applicants to satisfy the amount of compensation jointly and severally as also, the first liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the NonApplicant No. 3/Insurance Company is also not in dispute. Therefore, this Court is not adverting to the facts of case and is only dealing with the grounds raised seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Claims tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased aged about 55 years as Rs. 4,500/- per month only. She contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has considered the occupation of the deceased to be of Unskilled Labourer, however, as the claimant/applicants failed to produce any clinching piece of evidence to prove her income, has assessed her income notionally as Rs. 4,500/per month. She contended that if the Claims Tribunal came to the

¶23

3

¶24

conclusion that, in absence of proof of wages as pleaded in the claim application, income is to be assessed notionally then, it ought to have assessed the wages taking note of wages prevailing at the place where the deceased was residing on the date of accident or could have also taken the help of the minimum-wages as fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Further, Claims Tribunal has not awarded loss of consortium to the Appellant/Claimant No. 2 and has not awarded amount of compensation towards loss of future prospects. Hence, the amount of compensation awarded may be enhanced suitably.

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 opposes the submission of counsel for appellants/claimants and would submit that the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants in the facts of the case is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶26

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

¶27

So far as the submission of counsel for the appellant with regard to the income of the deceased is concerned, from perusal of the claim application, it is appearing that the claimants failed to prove income as pleaded in the claim application and in the facts of the case, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly taken recourse to assess income of deceased on notional basis. However, fell into error in not considering the wage structure as prevailing on the date of accident at the place of which, the deceased was resident or taking note of the minimumwages as fixed by the competent authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The minimum-wages fixed by the competent authority for ‘C’ Zone area for the period from 01.10.2018 till 31.03.2019 for Unskilled

¶28

4

¶29

Labourer is mentioned as Rs. 8,140/-, however, in the claim application, the claimants have pleaded, income of deceased as Rs. 7,000/- per month and therefore, I find it appropriate to assess income of deceased as Rs. 7,000/- per month. It is ordered accordingly.

¶30

Learned Claims Tribunal has rightly applied deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses and multiplier of 11 which is to the tune of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case 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.

¶31

Learned Claims Tribunal further awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 40,000/towards loss of consortium to the Applicant No. 1 which is in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) . However, learned Claims Tribunal fell into error in not adding any amount towards future prospects which is a well settled law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) . Therefore, looking to the age of the deceased to be 55 years as per the post-mortem report (Ex. P/7), I find it appropriate to add 10% of the assessed income towards the future prospects for computing the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimants/appellants. Further, learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded loss of consortium to the Claimant No. 2, child of the deceased. In the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram , reported in (2018) 8 SCC 130, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that children of the deceased person are entitled for compensation under the head of loss of parental consortium. In case at hand, the

¶32

5

¶33

Appellants/Claimant No. 2 is child of the deceased and therefore, he is entitled for Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of parental consortium. It is ordered accordingly.

¶34

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Pranay Sethi (Supra) 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.

¶35

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

¶36

S.	Heads		Compensation
No.
1.	(A)Loss of Income/Dependency 7000 X 12 =84,000/- (B)Addition towards future prospects @ 10% (84,000 X 10% = 8,400) (84,000 + 8400 = 92,400) (C)Deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses (92,400 X 1/3rd = 30,800) (92,400 – 30,800 = 61,600/-) (D)Multiplier of 11 (61,600 X 11 =6,77,600/-)	:	Rs. 6,77,600/-
2.	Funeral Expenses (15,000 + 10% of 15,000)	:	(+) Rs. 16,500/-
3.	Loss of Estate (15,000 + 10% of 15,000	:	(+) Rs. 16,500/-
4.	Loss of consortium to Claimant/Appellants (40,000 + 10% of 40,000) @Rs. 44,000/- each	:	(+) Rs. 88,000/-

¶37

6

¶38

(44,000 X 2) Total Compensation : Rs. 7,98,600/-

¶39

Now, the Appellants/Claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs. 7,98,600/- . The 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 as compensation shall be adjusted from 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/-- /-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶44

Dey

Arjun v. Shivprakash Manikpuri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun v. Shivprakash 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

Yogesh Kumar Paikra Vs Sadhram Kaiwartya

Kanhaiya Lal Vs Tarkeshwar Sahu

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Rajvindar Kaur

Prakash Vs Itwar Lal

Abhijeet Singh Chandel Vs Rameshwar Kewat

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Gyasudin Ansari