Milan Pataley Vs Pancham Kaiwartaya

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:38991

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 867 of 2019

¶6

1 - Milan Pataley S/o Chunni Lal Pataley Aged About 47 Years R/o Satnamipara Village- Sargaon Thana And Tahsil Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - Vikram Pataley S/o Milan Pataley Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Father Milan Pataley, R/o Satnamipara Village- Sargaon Thana And Tahsil Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

3 - Suraj Kumar Pataley S/o Milan Pataley Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Father Milan Pataley, R/o Satnamipara Village- Sargaon Thana And Tahsil Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

4 - Ku. Kajal Pataley D/o Milan Pataley Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Father Milan Pataley, R/o Satnamipara Village- Sargaon Thana And Tahsil Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

5 - Prakash Pataley S/o Milan Pataley Aged About 22 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Father Milan Pataley, R/o Satnamipara Village- Sargaon Thana And Tahsil Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.............(Claimants), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Appellants

¶12

Versus

¶13

1 - Pancham Kaiwartaya S/o Melaram Kaiwartya Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Bhothidih (Lawer) Thana And Tahsil Masturi District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh............ (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Tractor No. C.G.10/y/0397 And Trolley No. Cg.10/a./8135).......(Driver), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY

¶15

2

¶16

2 - Gulaba Yadav S/o Late Yadav Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Basiya Thana Sirgitty Tahsil- Bilha District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.................(Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Tractor No. Cg.10/y/0397)..............(Owner), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶17

3 - Chola Mandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Permanent Office Near Shri Ram Tower Byapar Vihar Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh...............(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Tractor No. Cg.10/y/0397)................(Insurer), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶18

4 - Dashrath Sahu S/o Late Panchram Sahu Aged About 75 Years R/o Nayapara Sirgitty, Near Santoshi Mandir Thana Sirgitty, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Trolley No. Cg.10/a/8135).......... (Owner), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶19

5 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Permanent Office-2nd Floor Rama Tred Center In Front Of Rajeev Plaza Old Bus Stand Road Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh..........(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Trolley No. Cg.10/a/8135)...........(Insurer), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶20

... Respondents

¶21

For Appellants : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate

¶22

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

¶23

Order On Board

¶24

06/08/2025

¶25

This appeal is filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 28.02.2019 passed by the learned 6^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 667/2017.

¶26

The motor accidental death of late Smt. Bedan Bai, inolvement of the offending vehicle i.e. Tractor bearing registration no. CG 10 Y 0347 and Trailor bearing registration no. CG 10 A 8135 also, the insurance of the

¶27

3

¶28

aforementioned two vehicles with the Respondents No. 3 & 5 is not in dispute. As the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation jointly upon the Respondents No. 3 & 5 is also not in dispute or challenge, therefore, this Court is not adverting the facts of the case and is only dealing with the grounds raised seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation as prayed by the claimants in this appeal.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that late Smt. Bedan Bai who suffered motor accidental injuries and succumbed to the same was aged about 45 years. The appellants have filed the claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 29,07,000/- pleading therein that the deceased was working as Tailor and earning Rs. 9,000/- per month. However, the Learned Claims Tribunal disbelieved the nature of occupation and income as pleaded by the claimants and stated in their evidence. He submits that even if the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the occupation and income of the deceased is not proved, the Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased on notional basis treating him to be a Labourer which would be more than the income of Rs. 4,500/- per month as assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal. He contended that the learned Claims tribunal has not awarded sufficient amount of compensation under the head of other conventional heads. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 40,000/- to the Claimant/Applicant No. 1 towards the loss of consortium and have not awarded the compensation of loss of consortium to the Claimant/Appellant No. 2 to 5, children of the deceased.

¶30

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents No. 3 & 5 opposes the submission of counsel for the appellants/claimants and

¶31

4

¶32

would submit that in the facts of the case, learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/-. The compensation computed and awarded cannot be said to be less. They also pointed out that the learned Claims Tribunal has added 30% of the assessed income towards the future prospect overlooking the fact that the deceased was not in permanent employment, but as per the pleadings, she was self-employed.

¶33

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

¶34

So far as the first submission made by the counsel for the appellant with respect to the assessment of the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month is concerned, the claimants except the pleadings made in the claim application and the self-serving statements, no other evidence is brought on record to prove the occupation of the deceased as Tailor and her income to be Rs. 9,000/- per month. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the learned Claims Tribunal justified in taking recourse to assess the income of the deceased notionally, however, fell into error in not assigning any reason to arrive at a conclusion that the income of the deceased would be Rs. 4,500/- per month only. In absence of the proof of income of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal could have assessed the income keeping in mind price index, cost of living, wage structure prevailing in the area of which deceased was resident of and could have also taken the help of the minimum-wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. In aforementioned facts of the case, where there is no suggestive evidence to prove the wages of the deceased in place of her residence, I find it appropriate to consider the occupation of

¶35

5

¶36

deceased to be one of Labouer and her income to Rs. 7,930/- as notified by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for a period from 01.10.2017 till 31.03.2018. It is ordered accordingly.

¶37

Claims Tribunal erred in adding 30% of the assessed income towards future prospect which in the facts of the case and as per decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 would be 25%. It is ordered accordingly. The Claims Tribunal further deducted 1/4th and applied multiplier of 14 for computing loss of dependency, which is in accordance with law settled law by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121.

¶38

Compensation awarded under the head of loss of consortium is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram , reported in (2018) 8 SCC 130. Compensation to be awarded under the head of loss of consortium is quantified by the Hon’ble Supreme court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and further types of consortium has been explained in case of Nanu Ram (Supra) and held that the there are three types of consortium i.e. spousal consortium for widow/widower, parental consortium to children and filial consortium to parents. In case at hand, Appellants/Claimants No. 2 to 5 are children and therefore, they are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium respectively. It is ordered accordingly.

¶39

6

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

S.	Heads		Compensation
No.
1.	(A)Loss of Income/Dependency 7,930 X 12 =95,160 (B)Addition towards future prospects @ 25% (95,160 X 25% = 23,790) (95,160+ 23790 = 1,18,950) (C)Deduction of 14th towards personal and living expenses (1,18,950 X 1/4th = 29737.5) (1,18,950 – 29737.5 = 89212.5/-) (D)Multiplier of 14 (89212.5 X 14 =12,48,975/-)	:	Rs. 12,48,975/-
2.	Funeral Expenses	:	(+)Rs. 16,500/-
3.	Loss of Estate	:	(+)Rs. 16,500/-
4.	Loss of spousal consortium to the Appellant No. 1 (44,000 X 1)	:	(+) Rs. 44,000/-
5.	Loss of parental consortium to Claimant/Appellants @ Rs. 44,000/- each(44,000 X 4)	: 11	(+) Rs. 1,76,000/- .
	Total Compensation	:	Rs. 15,01,975/-