Branch Manager, Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Janmati

¶1

1

¶2

SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI

¶3

Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI

¶4

2025:CGHC:42223

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

MAC No. 787 of 2020

¶8

Branch Manager, Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Authorized Officer, 2nd Floor Simaran Tower Pandri, In front of LIC Building, Pandri, Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

... Appellant

¶10

versus

¶11

Smt. Janmati W/o Late Vinod Kumar Kenwat Aged About 37 Years.

¶12

Minor Ku. Punam Kumari D/o Late Vinod Kumar Kenwat Aged About 14 Years

¶13

Minor Krish Kumar S/o Late Vinod Kumar Kenwat Aged About 7 Years

¶14

Minor Ku. Jaya D/o Late Vinod Kumar Kenwat Aged About 5 Years

¶15

Respondent No.2 to 4 are minor through their natural guardian Mother Smt. Janmati, W/o Late Vinod Kumar Kenwat,

¶16

Respondent No.1 to 4 are R/o village Pisid, P. S. & Tehsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶17

Bhagirathi Parid S/o Punachand Parida Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Bardiya, P. S. Kalijuda Barmundali District Jagatsinghpur (Orissa).

¶18

2

¶19

Ganeshwari Bishwal S/o Binakar Bishal Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Tentuli, Bilali, P.S. Balikunda District Jagatpursingh (Orissa).

¶20

... Respondent(s)

¶21

For Appellant : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.1 to 4 : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Ankita Sriwas, Advocate

¶22

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶23

Order on Board

¶24

20/8/2025

¶25

Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to claimants vide award dated 6.12.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar Bhatapara (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.54/2019.

¶26

Learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company submits that this appeal is filed challenging quantum of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal of Rs.12,58,000/- on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal erred in considering age of deceased as 40 years based on postmortem report whereas as per Adhaar Card of deceased, his date of birth is ‘1.1.1976’ and as such, on the date of accident i.e. 6.10.2018, he was about 42 years of age or above 40 years of age. If deceased is to be considered above 40 years of age, then addition of income towards future prospects would be reduced from 40% to 25% and multiplier applicable would be

¶27

3

¶28

‘14’ and not ‘15’ as applied by learned Claims Tribunal and thereby there will be substantial reduction in quantum of compensation for which claimants will be entitled for.

¶29

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 opposing submissions of learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company, would submit that copy of Adhaar Car on which reliance is placed by learned counsel for appellant is not available in record of learned Claims Tribunal, even it is not forming part of this appeal also. She further contended that determination of age of deceased to be 40 years by learned Claims Tribunal being based on evidence and material available before it i.e. postmortem report, is correct. Amount of compensation computed and awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the documents available in record.

¶31

So far as submission of learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company that age of deceased on the date of accident was above 40 years is concerned, except pleading in ground that date of birth of deceased was 1.1.1976, no document along with memo of appeal has been placed on record. Even no such document is produced before learned Claims Tribunal to assert the age of deceased to be above 40

¶32

4

¶33

years on the date of accident. In absence of any documentary evidence before learned Claims Tribunal, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal justified in considering postmortem report in which age of deceased was mentioned as 40 years. In the given facts and circumstances of case, determination of age of deceased as 40 years by learned Claims Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous. Accordingly, submission of learned counsel for appellant with respect of age of deceased is not sustainable and is hereby repelled.

¶34

So far as submission of learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company that learned Claims Tribunal erred in adding 50% of assessed income towards future prospects is concerned, in evidence claimants have pleaded and stated that deceased was working as vegetable vendor, which is self-employment and does not come in category of permanent employment or job with public or private sector. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , in cases where deceased was self-employed and below 40 years of age, there shall be addition of 40% of established income towards future prospects. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal erred in adding 50% towards future prospects and therefore, it is hereby set aside. It is held that there shall be

¶35

5

¶36

addition of 40% of established income towards future prospects.

¶37

For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to claimants/respondents No.1 to 4.

¶38

Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.6,000/- per month, as assessed by learned Claims Tribunal, and after adding 40% towards future prospects, total income comes to Rs.8,400/-. Thus, annual income of deceased for the purpose of calculating compensation comes to Rs.1,00,800/-. Out of this amount, one-fourth is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased, as done by Claims Tribunal, and after deducting one-fourth, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.86,400/-. By applying multiplier of 15 as applied by Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency, total loss of dependency would come to Rs.12,96,000/-. Besides this, appellant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. Appellants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.13,66,000/-.

¶39

Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount already paid to claimants as compensation shall be adjusted from total amount of compensation as calculated above.

¶40

6

¶41

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

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶44

roshan/-

Branch Manager, Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Janmati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Branch Manager, Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Janmati

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

Mahendra Kumar Sahu Vs Sanat Kumar Sahu

Smt. Basanti Singh Vs Ramsingh

Reeta Patwa Vs Rehanu Raja @ Bhai Jaan

Manager, United Insurance Company Vs Smt. Manju Jha

Mrs. Keja Bai Patle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajeshwer Prasad Vs Ramchandra Gupta