Smt. Fuleshwari Nishad Vs Moh.Nayeem

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT

¶3

2025:CGHC:33079

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 839 of 2018

¶7

1 - Smt. Fuleshwari Nishad Wd/o Late Hemant Nishad Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Sondara, P.S. Dharsiwa, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2 - Ku. Sakshi D/o Late Hemant Nishad Aged About 1 Years Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Fuleshwari Nishad, R/o Village Sondara, P.S. Dharsiwa, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

3 - Smt. Rukmani Bai W/o Late Krishna Murari Nishad Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Sondara, P.S. Dharsiwa, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

4 - Krishna Murari Nishad S/o Shri Lakhan Lal Nishad Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Sondara, P.S. Dharsiwa, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

... Appellant(s)

¶12

versus

¶13

1 - Moh.Nayeem S/o Moh. Tahid Aged About 50 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Dheemrapur Chowk, Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Other Address- Mohd. Jamaluddin Dammani, Nera Petrol Pump Bhanpuri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Driver Vehicle No. Cg 04 Ja 8674), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

2

¶15

2 - Moh. Jamaluddin Dammani R/o Nera Petrol Pump Bhanpuri, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Owner Vehicle No. Cg 04 Ja 8674), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

3 - Sriram General Insurance Company Limited Through The Manager/competent Authority, Sriram General Insurance Company Limited, Office At Mp Nagar, Bhopal (Mp) (Insurer Of Vehicle No. Cg 04 Ja 8674), District : Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.

¶17

... Respondent(s)

¶18

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate on behalf
	of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel,
	Advocate.
For Respondent(s)	: None.

¶19

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

15/07/2025

¶22

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 29.01.2018 passed by the learned Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 54/2009 (“Smt. Fuleshwari Nishad & Ors. Vs. Moh. Nayeem & Ors.”) whereby an amount of Rs. 7,50,400/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum has been awarded in the favour of the claimants of the deceased for their irreparable loss.

¶23

Brief facts of the case, is that respondent No. 3 is the Insurance Company, respondent No. 2 is the owner and respondent No. 1 is the driver of the offending vehicle. The appellant are the legal

¶24

3

¶25

heirs of deceased Hemant Nishad have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the learned Claims Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,70,000/- on account of his death. As per the prosecution, on 04.03.2009 at about 07:30 PM, near Police Station Simga, District Raipur (Highway No. 200) near Gadadiya Nala, Bemata, respondent No. 1, while driving the offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG 04 JA 8674 rashly and negligently dashed against a motorcycle bearing No. CG 04 LR 1106, resulting in the death of both the rider (Hemant Nishad) and the pillion rider (Roshan Lal Nishad) on the spot. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed their reply denying the claim and contending that the driver had a valid and effective driving license and the vehicle was duly insured with respondent No. 3, thereby denying liability for compensation. Respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company) also filed a reply denying the allegations and asserted that neither the driver of the offending vehicle nor the motorcycle had valid driving licenses, and further, the insurer of the motorcycle was not impleaded as a party. It was also alleged that the motorcycle rider drove rashly and negligently, which caused the accident. After recording evidence and hearing both parties, the learned Claims Tribunal passed an award dated 29.01.2018, granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,49,000/-. Dissatisfied with the

¶26

4

¶27

award, the appellants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. Therefore, the appellants/claimants of the deceased preferred an application claiming a total compensation of Rs. 20,70,000/-.

¶28

After considering the evidence and documents brought on record, the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum. After deduction of 1/4 of the income i.e. Rs. 9,000/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 27,000/- and considering the age of the deceased to be 21 to 25 years and the appellants/claimants are the wife, daughter and parents of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 4,86,000/-. After adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 1,94,400/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 6, 80,400/-. Further Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 7,50,400/- in favour of the wife, daughter and parents of the deceased with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,50,400/- which is not

¶30

5

¶31

in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably.

¶32

None for the respondents.

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.

¶34

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.

¶35

Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

¶36

As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,00,00/- per annum from his work, but no documentary evidence in this regard has been produced by the claimants. The learned claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month. Therefore, in absence of any reliable

¶37

6

¶38

evidence regarding income of the deceased , keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, price index and cost of living etc. especially notification by Labour Department for minimum wages. Upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month as per minimum wages, the annual income comes to Rs. 36,000/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 14,400/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 50,400/-.

¶39

10. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 25 years and the appellant/claimants are the wife, daughter and parents of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4 (Rs. 12,600/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs. 37,800/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 6,80,400/-. The claimants are further entitled for Rs. 18,000/towards loss of estate (increase of 10% in every three years) and

¶40

7

¶41

Rs. 18,000/- for funeral expenses (increase of 10% in every three years). As per ' Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189 , the claimants are further entitled for Rs. (40,000X4+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 1,92,000/- (Rs. 40,000/already given) so Rs. 1,92,000-40,000 i.e. Rs. 1,52,000 for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. wife, daughter and parents of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 7,12,800/- in the following manner:-

¶42

S.No.	Heads	Calculation
01	Towards loss of dependency	Rs. 6,80,400/-
02	Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X2+10% +10%-40,000).	Rs. 1,52,000/-
03	Towards loss of estate along with increase of 10% in every threeyears.	Rs. 18,000/-
04	Towards Funeral Expenses along with increase of 10% in everythreeyears.	Rs. 18,000/-
	Total	Rs. 8,68,400/-

¶43

Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 8,68,400/-. After deducting Rs. 7,50,400/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 1,18,000/-.

¶44

8

¶45

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed . The claimants/appellants i.e. wife, daughter and parents of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,18,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶48

Judge

¶49

Raghu Jat

Smt. Fuleshwari Nishad v. Moh.Nayeem

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Fuleshwari Nishad v. Moh.Nayeem

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. Sugantin Bai Vs Lokesh Das Manikpuri

Smt. Shringarkali Agrawal Vs Jeevrakhan Sahu