Rajkumar Kurre Vs Santosh Chandra

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:25173

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 852 of 2019

¶6

1 - Rajkumar Kurre S/o Late Raghuvar Kurre, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Charpara, Police Station - Malkharoda, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Budhwari Bazar, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - Smt. Kekti Bai W/o Rajkumar Kurre, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village - Charpara, Police Station - Malkharoda, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Budhwari Bazar, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - Santosh Chandra S/o Jageshwar Chandra, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village - Sarasdola, Police Station- Malkharoda, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh. At Present Sector - 5, Balco Nagar, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Driver ), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Smt. Leela Devi Agrawal W/o Subhash Chandra Agrawal , R/o Anand Bhawan, Apartment Sumangal Apartment, Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Owner ), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through The Divisional Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Sada Complex, Taxi Stand, T.P. Nagar, Korba District Korba Chhattisgah. (Insurance Company), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Hemant Kumar Chandra S/o Subilal, R/o Ganesh Nagar, Chuichuiha Para, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

2

¶16

For Appellants : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate For Non-Appellant No. 3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Non-Appellant No. 2 : Mr. Siddharth Rathod, Advocate

¶17

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

¶18

Order On Board

¶19

18/06/2025

¶20

This appeal is filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba, District - Korba vide award dated 12.12.2018 in Claim Case No. 71/2017.

¶21

Facts of the case in brief are that, on 11.07.2017, son of the applicant namely Ravi Kurre (since deceased) was traveling towards Malkharauda from Jamtai in a Innova Car bearing registration no. CG 10 AF 5835, when he reached near Village Tarra, P.S. Panduka, District

¶22

Gariyaband, at that time, tyre of the said car bursts, met with an accident with a tree beside the road. In the said accident, son of the applicants i.e. deceased Ravi Kurre suffered serious injuries and he succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Subsequent to the said accident, an FIR was registered bearing Crime No. 69/2017, P.S. Panduka, District - Gariyaband for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶23

The appellants/claimants in the claim application have filed application seeking compensation pleading therein that the deceased was aged about 21 years, was a student of Government Polytechnic College, Raigarh. He was also giving tuition to students and earning Rs. 7,000/per month, claimed Rs. 44,76,000/- as compensation from the nonapplicants.

¶24

The Non-Applicant No. 1 in his written statement opposing the pleadings made by the claimants/applicants in claim application have

¶25

3

¶26

stated that in the same accident, son of the Non-Applicant No. 1 also died. On the date of accident, offending vehicle was insured with the Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company and the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing valid and effective driving license, offending vehicle was insured and therefore, the Non-Applicants No. 1 is not liable to pay compensation, if any.

¶27

The Non-Applicant No. 2 submitted reply stating that on the date of accident, the Non-Applicant No. 2 was not having the ownership of the offending vehicle as the said vehicle was sold to the Non-Applicant No. 4 prior to the date of accident. Even if the applicants/claimants are found entitle for compensation, the liability to pay the same be fastened upon the Non-Applicant No. 3, because on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the Non-Applicant No. 3.

¶28

The Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company submitted reply pleading that though the offending vehicle i.e. Innova Car bearing registration No. CG 10 AF 5835 was insured with the Non-Applicant No. 3 on the date of accident, however, the person driving the vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving license, the vehicle was not having fitness certificate and valid permit. Above facts were within the knowledge of the owner of the vehicle, but the owner of the vehicle ignoring the said fact, plied the vehicle in breach of conditions of insurance policy, hence, the Non-Applicant No. 3 is not liable to satisfy the amount of compensation.

¶29

Non-applicant No. 4 filed reply denying ownership and possession of the offending vehicle. Non-Applicant No. 2 has not given possession of the vehicle. The registered owner of the vehicle even today is Nonapplicant No. 2, and in insurance paper also. Offending vehicle was

¶30

4

¶31

insured with Non-applicant No. 3/Insurance Company and hence, the compensation if any awarded, liability to satisfy award would be of Non-applicant No.3/insurance company.

¶32

The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the facts and evidence brought on record by respective parties held that, the death of deceased was due to the motor accidental injuries, on the date of accident, the deceased was about 28 years of age, earning Rs. 5,000/per month and awarded Rs. 7,86,000/- to the claimants/appellants.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/- only instead of Rs. 7,000/- as pleaded by the claimants. The claimants have specifically pleaded that the deceased was a student of Government Polytechnic College, Raigarh and was also giving tuition to students and thereby, earning Rs. 7,000/- per month. He further contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 30,000/- on other conventional heads i.e. the funeral expenses and loss of estate and has not awarded any amount of compensation to the appellants/claimants under the head of loss of consortium and hence, he prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation suitably.

¶34

On the other hand, learned counsels for the Non-applicants No. 2 & 3/Insurance Company opposes the submission of counsel for the appellants/claimants and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal considering entirety of the facts pleaded and the evidence available on record has rightly assessed the income of the deceased. The deceased was not a working person, but was a student as per the pleading. They further submit that the amount of compensation awarded under other

¶35

5

¶36

conventional heads is on the facts of the case is also correct and does not call for any interference.

¶37

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

¶38

The occurance of accident and death of Ravi Kumar (deceased) in the said accident is not in dispute. The liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company is also not in dispute. This appeal is filed seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation on the two grounds as mentioned above in the submission of the counsel for the applicant.

¶39

Perusal of the record would show that in the application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was a student of Government Polytechnic College, Raigarh and providing tuition to the students and thereby, earning Rs. 7,000/- per month. In the evidence, the claimants have not filed any documents like mark-sheet or fee receipt of the college to show that the deceased at the time of accident was a student and was studying at Government Polytechnic College, Raigarh. As such, there is no evidence with respect to the deceased pursuing studies in Government Polytechnic College, Raigarh. In absence of any documentary evidence or admissible piece of evidence, mere selfserving statements of the Appellant No. 1 cannot be taken as a proof of the pleadings made with respect to the deceased studying in Government Polytechnic College, Raigarh and therefore, the income of the deceased, who was a major boy of 21 years on the date of accident, has to be taken on notional basis.

¶40

6

¶41

For assessing the income on notional basis, the Claims Tribunal or the Courts are required to take into consideration the date of accident, age of the deceased, cost of living, price index, wage structure prevailing in the area in which, the deceased was residing and can also take the help of the minimum-wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

¶42

In the case at hand, there is no material to suggest the wage structure prevailing within the area in which, the deceased was residing and therefore, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased taking note of the minimum-wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and prevailing within the State. As there is no proof with respect to the nature of occupation of the deceased, the occupation of the deceased can be taken as ‘Labourer’. The minimum wages fixed and notified by the competent authority with respect to the Unskilled Labourer is Rs. 7,800/- per month for the Schedule ‘C’ areas and accordingly, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/- per month only, which is not sustainable and accordingly, it is set-aside . As the income of deceased as pleaded and stated by the claimants is Rs. 7,000/-, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased as Rs. 7,000/- per month.

¶43

Now, income of the deceased is assessed as Rs. 7,000/- per month as per the pleadings made in the claim application. The learned Claims Tribunal has rightly added 40% of the assessed income as loss of future prospects of deceased which is in the tune of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Learned

¶44

7

¶45

Claims Tribunal has rightly applied the deduction of 1/2 and multiplier of 18 which is to the tune of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121.

¶46

The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- each under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses and has not awarded compensation under the head of loss of consortium to the appellants/claimants as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram , reported in (2018) 8 SCC. In the said case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the types of consortium and held that there are three types of consortium i.e. spousal consortium for wife/husband, parental consortium to children and filial consortium to parents. In the case at hand, the Appellants No. 1 & 2 are parents of the deceased and therefore, they are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium (total Rs. 80,000/-).

¶47

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

¶48

Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.7,000/- and since at the time of death, the deceased was 21 years old, therefore, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) , the income of deceased is required to be enhanced by 40% towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.9,800/(7000+2800). Thus annual income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the compensation comes to Rs.1,17,600/- (9,800 x 12). Out of this amount, 1/2 is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and after deducting 1/2 of the annual

¶49

8

¶50

income, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.58,800/(1,17,600 – 58,800). By applying multiplier of 18, as applied by the Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency, total loss of dependency would come to Rs.10,58,400/- (58,800 x 18). Besides this, Appellants No. 1 & 2 are entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards filial consortium, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Magma General Insurance (Supra) . Further, they are also entitled for Rs. 15,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal.

¶51

Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.11,68,400/- (10,58,400 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000). This 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.

¶52

Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants No. 1 & 2 as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above.

¶53

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

¶54

Certified copy as per rules.

¶55

Sd/-Sd /-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶56

Dey

Rajkumar Kurre v. Santosh Chandra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar Kurre v. Santosh Chandra

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. Gulawati Sahu Vs Sunil Dwivedi

Bhajan Singh Painkara Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jalil Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Shikha Meshram Vs Alok Kumar Singh

Mohammad Sagir Vs Rinu Bibi

Smt. Vrinda Bai Vs Santosh Chandra