Smt. Savita Sidar Vs Suryanath Kumar

¶1

1

¶2

SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI

¶3

2025:CGHC:33726

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 84 of 2024

¶7

Smt. Savita Sidar W/o Late Kishan Sidar Aged About 23 Years Occupation - Housewife, Resident Of Village Sardamal, P.S. Kotraroad, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh,...(Claimants)

¶8

Bodhan Singh Sidar S/o Anjor Singh Sidar Aged About 48 Years Occupation - Nill, Resident Of Village Sardamal, P.S. Kotraroad, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Gurbari W/o Bodhan Singh Sidar Aged About 47 Years Occupation - Housewife, Resident Of Village Sardamal, P.S. Kotraroad, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Appellant-claimants

¶11

versus

¶12

Suryanath Kumar S/o Balram Korwa Aged About 26 Years Occupation - Driver Vehicle , Resident Of Boriyadmar, Post Dandai, Gadwa Jharkhand, Present Address - C/o Dilshad Aalam India, Nagar, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Trailor Bearing Registration No. C.G. 13 L.L. 5043)

¶13

Dilshad Aalam S/o Basi Ahmad Aged About 34 Years Occuapation - Owner Vehicle, Resident Of Indira, Nagar, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Trailor Bearing Registration No. C.G. 13 L.L. 5043)

¶14

2

¶15

Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Local Office Kewdabadi, Near Bus Stand, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Trailor Bearing Registration No. C.G. 13 L.L. 5043)

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

For Appellants : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.3 Mr. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board

¶18

17/7/2025

¶19

Heard on I.A. No.1/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay as this appeal is preferred with delay.

¶20

On due consideration of the pleadings made in I.A. No.1/2025, which is not opposed by learned counsel for respective respondents, it is allowed. Delay in filing this appeal is condoned.

¶21

With the consent of the parties, appeal is heard finally at motion stage.

¶22

Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 27.3.2023 in Claim Case No.3/2022.

¶23

Facts of the case, in brief, are that claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) against the death of Kishan Sidar

¶24

3

¶25

in accident dated 23.12.2021 which allegedly occurred on account of rash and negligent act on the part of non-applicant No.1 in driving trailer bearing registration mark CG13-LA5043 (for short ‘the offending vehicle’). It is averred that when Kishan Sidar and one Vimal were standing at Sidar Chowk, at that time the offending vehicle dashed motorcycle of Vimal and also ran over Kishan and Vimal as a result they sustained grievous injuries and died on spot. It was further averred that deceased was 24 years of age at the time of accident, he was working as labourer, earning Rs.11,000/- per months and due to her untimely death, the claimants have suffered loss of income.

¶26

Non-applicant No.1 and 2, driver and owner of offending vehicle filed joint reply to claim application denying the averments made therein. It was pleaded that false report is lodged against non-applicant No.1. In case the non-applicant No.1 and 2 are found liable to pay compensation to claimants, then the non-applicant No.3 being insurer is liable to pay the same.

¶27

Non-applicant No.3- Insurance Company filed its reply pleading that four persons were travelling on the motorcycle without wearing safety gears and denied the accident from the offending vehicle. At the time of accident, driver of offending vehicle was not having valid driving license and

¶28

4

¶29

even there was no valid permit and fitness certificate in favour of offending vehicle. Thus, there was violation of essential conditions of insurance policy and hence, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured.

¶30

The Claims Tribunal upon analyzing the materials brought on record by the parties, came to the conclusion that, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver, there was no violation of any condition of the insurance policy and accordingly, allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.19,31,912/-, and fastened liability to satisfy the impugned award upon the nonapplicants, jointly and severally.

¶31

Learned counsel for claimants/appellants submits that income of deceased has not been properly assessed by the Claims Tribunal. He next contended that the deduction made towards personal expenses of deceased and application of multiplier by the Claims Tribunal is not correct. Even the compensation awarded under other head is on lower side. He submits that the Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded interest at the rate of 18%. Therefore, he prays that amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents supporting the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, submitted that the compensation awarded by

¶33

5

¶34

the Claims Tribunal is just and proper.

¶35

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of claim case including impugned award.

¶36

The claimants/appellants has pleaded in the claim application that the deceased was earning Rs.11,000/- per month by working as labourer. This assertion is supported by oral testimony of the witnesses produced by appellants, but they failed to produce any documentary or other admissible evidence to substantiate their claim with respect to occupation and income of deceased. In such a situation, the Claims Tribunal was right in assessing monthly income of the deceased on notional basis by taking resort to minimum wage rate prescribed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. However, assessment of the income of the deceased by the Claims Tribunal on the basis of minimum wage rate notified for ‘C’ Zone area is not correct. In case at hand, at the time of accident, deceased was resident of District Raigarh. As per classification of zones by the competent authority under Minimum Wages Act 1948, ‘Raigarh city’ falls within Zone-B area and minimum wage rate notified for an unskilled worker of Raigarh zone for the period from 1.10.2021 to 31.3.2021 is Rs.9,540/- per month. Hence, I deem it proper to fix monthly income of deceased as Rs.9,540/- per month in place of Rs.9.280/- per month as

¶37

6

¶38

assessed by the Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly.

¶39

The Claims Tribunal, keeping in view the age of deceased at the time of accident i.e. 28 years, has increased his income by 40% on account of future prospects, which is in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 .

¶40

In case at hand, the deceased was survived by his wife and parents and thus the number of dependent family members is three. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation , report in (2009) 6 SCC 121, one-third is to be deducted towards persons expenses of deceased where number of dependent member is 2 to 3. Thus, deduction of one-third from the annual income of deceased towards his personal and living expenses is correct.

¶41

Considering the deceased to be in the age group of 26 to 30 years the Claims Tribunal has applied multiplier of 17, which is also as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) wherein it has been held that if the age of the victim is between 26 to 30 years, a multiplier of 17 is to be adopted. Thus, the multiplier applied by the Claims Tribunal being in consonance with the standards laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (supra) , also

¶42

7

¶43

does not call for any interference.

¶44

Awarding of Rs.40,000/- to each claimants for the loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses is also in consonance with the principles stated by the Apex Court in the cases of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & others , (2018) 18 SCC 130 , Pranay Sethi (supra) and needs no interference.

¶45

17.In view of the above, the compensation payable to appellantsclaimants requires to be recalculated.

¶46

18.Accordingly, the income of deceased is taken as Rs.9,540/and after adding 40% towards future prospects, monthly income comes to Rs.13,356/- and annual income comes to Rs.1,60,272/- Out of this, one-third is to be deducted towards personal expenses of deceased, and after deducting onethird, annual dependency would come to Rs.1,06,848/-. Applying multiplier of 17, as applied by Claims Tribunal, the loss of dependency would be Rs.18,16,416/-. According to decision in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), there shall be increase of 10% to the conventional compensation. Thus, appellants being widow, mother and father of the deceased are entitled for a sum of Rs.44,000/- (40000+10% of 40000) each towards spousal and filial consortium respectively, and Rs.16,500/- (15000+10% of 15000) each for funeral

¶47

8

¶48

expenses and loss of estate, as assessed and awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

¶49

19.Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.19,81,416/(18,16,416 + 44,000 + 44,000 + 44,000 + 16,500 +16,500). This enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of application till its realization . Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount disbursed to appellants pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted.

¶50

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

¶51

Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶52

roshan/

Smt. Savita Sidar v. Suryanath Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Savita Sidar v. Suryanath Kumar

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

Smt. Chandrakala Bisen Vs Ashok Yadav

Pannalal Sinha Vs Motilal Bharti

Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs Smt. Chanda Gupta

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Jaleshwar Singh Sahu

Smt. Sonmati Kashyap Vs Naresh Kumar Kumhar

Jaleshwar Singh Sahu Vs Saurabh Chandrakar