Smt. Tomin Sahu Vs Arun Baghel

¶1

1 / 6

¶2

2025:CGHC:16654

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MA C No. 867 of 202 0

¶6

Smt. Tomin Sahu W/o Late Dilip Sahu, Aged About 31 Years

¶7

Prince Sahu, S/o Late Dilip Sahu, Aged About 6 Years (Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Tomin Sahu Appellant No. 1)

¶8

Ku. Rashmi Sahu D/o. Late Dilip Sahu, Aged About 2 Years (Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Tomin Sahu Appellant No. 1) All are R/o. House No. 500/1, Ward No. 19, Sarkhi, Post Kolar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

--- Appellants/ Claimants

¶10

versus

¶11

Arun Baghel S/o N.L. Baghel, Aged About 38 Years R/o. Ward No. 36, New Khursipar, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ( Driver of Offending Pickup CG07, AD- 0011)

¶12

Gurudeep Singh S/o Rajendra Singh, Aged About 50 Years R/o. Santarabadi, Near Gayatri Mandir, Ward No. 25, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ( Owner of Offending Pickup CG-07, AD- 0011)

¶13

Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Parmanand Building, Rajendra Chowk Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh ( Insurer of Offending Pickup CG-07, AD- 0011).

¶14

--- Respondents

¶15

____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 & 2 : None appeared, though served.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶17

09/04/2025

¶18

Order On Board

¶19

PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA

¶20

Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 22.01.2020 passed by Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 3/2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles

¶21

2 / 6

¶22

Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 22,22,552/- as compensation in death case.

¶23

Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 24.05.2018 , Dilip Sahu was returning from Durg to his place of residence at Sarakhi on his motorcycle No. CG04-LJ-0561 after taking medicine. When he reached near Honda showroom and tractor showroom, near petrol pump, the nonapplicant No. 1/ driver of the Pick Up vehicle No. CG07-AD-0011 (henceforth “offending vehicle”) coming from Patan, drove the vehicle rashly and negligently, on the wrong side of the road and hit the motorcycle and caused an accident due to which Dilip Sahu suffered grievous injuires. He died because of grievous injuries suffered to him. Report of the alleged accident was lodged in Police Station-Patan, District-Durg (CG) based on which Crime No.-87/2018 was registered against the driver non-applicant No. 1.

¶24

Appellants, widow and children of deceased Dilip Sahu, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking ₹ 34,34,500/- as compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was a 34-year-old hardworking person who was employed as Shiksha Karmi Gr.II and working in Kachna Government Primary School, District Dhamtari and earning ₹ 21,500/- per month and maintaining himself and his family.

¶25

Non-applicants No. 1 & 2/ Respondents No. 1 & 2-Driver and the owner of offending vehicle did not appear before the Claims Tribunal, not filed their reply and hence, they were proceed ex parte.

¶26

Non-applicant No. 3/ Resp. No. 3-Insurance Company in its reply, apart from accepting the undisputed facts, had denied the pleadings made in the application and further denied the fact that the non-applicant No. 1 while driving the offending vehicle caused accident in which Dilip Sahu died. It is further stated that the information about the accident was not given to the insurance company immediately. The accident occurred due to negligent driving of driver of motorcycle CG 04LJ-0561 (the deceased), in such a

¶27

3 / 6

¶28

situation, Insurance Company would not liable for payment of any amount of compensation, if any.

¶29

Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Dilip Sahu died because of injuries suffered in a motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant 1. Breach of conditions of the insurance policy and contributory negligence were not found to be proved. Tribunal holding the non-applicant No. 2/ Insurance Company primarily liable to pay the compensation amount, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 22,22,552/- as total compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application.

¶30

Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre sum of compensation of ₹ 22,22,552/-. Learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of deceased who was working as Siksha Karmi as ₹ 15,000/- per month only contrary to the document Ext. P-1 issued by the Additional Chief Executive Officer (Education), Janpad Panchayat, Kurud, District Dhamtari, C.G. He contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has not assigned any reason for not accepting the gross salary mentioned in Ex. P/1. Document issued by the competent authority under whom the deceased was working is admissible in evidence. He next contended that the Claims Tribunal erred in not adding any amount in the income of the deceased towards loss of future prospects as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported i n (2017) 16 SCC 680. The deceased on the date of accident was less than 40 years of age, therefore, there will be addition of 40% of the assessed income. The amount of compensation towards other conventional heads and the loss of consortium was not awarded to the appellants who are widow and children of the deceased as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra) a nd Magma General Insurance

¶31

4 / 6

¶32

Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. Hence, the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced.

¶33

Learned counsel for Respondent 3-Insurance Company vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for appellants and further submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case the amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference of this Court. He however submitted that the the Claims Tribunal erroneously applied multiplier of 17 instead of 16 for the age group of 31 years to 35 years as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.

¶34

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

¶35

So far as, the submission of learned counsel for the appellants with regard to assessment of income of the deceased is concerned, the appellantsclaimants have proved the income of deceased by producing annual salary statement issued under the signature of Assistant Chief Executive Officer (Education), Janpad Panchayat who is the competent authority for issuing the document and the payment of salary. Perusal of document would show that the salary of deceased for the month from July 2017 to February 2018 is mentioned as ₹ 15,874/- per month. Learned Claims Tribunal while recording a finding with respect to annual salary of deceased has taken note of amount of ₹ 1,87,284/- which is net salary and has not considered the deduction made from the salary is not towards the income tax but it is with respect to the CPS which the part of his salary which he would have received at the time of his retirement from the service. Therefore, the said amount cannot be deducted.

¶36

5 / 6

¶37

In the said facts of the case, I am of the view that as there is no deduction towards the income tax from the income of deceased, the income of deceased as to be considered based on the gross salary ie., ₹ 1,94,312/- as mentioned in Ext. P-1. Therefore, the annual income of deceased is assessed as ₹ 1,94,312/- instead of ₹ 1,87,284/- as assessed by the Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly.

¶38

Learned Claims Tribunal has deducted 1/3 towards personal and living expenses, which in the facts of the case, is correct as there are three dependents in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) in which guidelines have been issued for deducting personal and living expenses based on number of dependents upon deceased and held that where the dependents are two to three, there will be deduction of 1/3 and where the number of dependents are 4 to 6 there will be deduction of 1/4 as the case may be. However, the Tribunal has erroneously applied multiplier of 17 which is for the age group between 26-30 years. In the case at hand, deceased was 33 years of age on the date of accident as held by Tribunal, hence, the multiplier of 16 will be applied towards loss of dependency. Further, learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of future prospects, therefore, in the facts of the case and looking to the age of deceased, he was under employment of Janpad Pachayat, working as Siksha Karmi, there will be addition of 50% of established income in the income of deceased for assessing total income of deceased for purpose of calculating compensation as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) . Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹ 50,000/- towards spousal consortium, ₹ 25,000/- towards love and affection and ₹ 25,000/- towards funeral expenses which are not in accordance with the law laid down by the Honb’le Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Nanu Ram (supra).

¶39

6 / 6

¶40

For the foregoing reasons, I find it appropriate to recompute the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimants considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases which is as under.

¶41

The annual income of deceased is assessed as ₹ 1,94,312/- . Upon adding 50% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects, yearly income of deceased on the date of accident will come to ₹ 2,91,468/-. After deducting 1/3 towards personal and living expenses, annual loss of dependency will come to ₹ 1,94,312/-. Upon applying multiplier of 16, total loss of dependency will come to ₹ 31,08,992/- [₹ 1,94,312x16]. Besides the amount of compensation towards loss of dependency, appellants-claimants shall further be entitled for ₹ 40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium to appellant No. 1, ₹ 40,000/- each to appellants No. 2 & 3 towards loss of parental consortium, ₹ 15,000/- towards loss of estate and ₹ 15,000/- towards funeral expenses.

¶42

Now the appellants-claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 32,58,992/- [₹ 31,08,992 + ₹ 40,000 + ₹ 40,000 + ₹ 40,000 + ₹15,000 + ₹15,000] instead of ₹ 22,22,552/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. Aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount paid to the appellants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above.

¶43

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

¶44

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶45

pwn

Smt. Tomin Sahu v. Arun Baghel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Tomin Sahu v. Arun Baghel

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

Santosh Kumar Chouhan Vs Natwar Sharma

Urmila Vs Akbar Ali

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Bihanu

Navkeet Nirala Vs Navdeep Nirala

Smt. Sunita Lakda Vs Uday Chand

Smt. Dulourin Madhukar Vs Birat Chhattar