Soniya Bai Vs Ashok Das

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally 2025:CGHC:15745 A signed by ANNAJEE A RAO ANNAJEE RAO

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 88 of 2018

¶6

1 - Soniya Bai Wd/o Late Shri Jokhuram Aged About 43 Years R/o Near Tarbahar Fatak, Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

2 - Rajendra Kumar S/o Late Jokhuram Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Soniya Bai, R/o Near Tarbahar Fatak, Tarbahar, Bilaspur District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

3 - Ravishankar S/o Late Jokhuram Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Soniya Bai, R/o Near Tarbahar Fatak, Tarbahar, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

4 - Kunti Wd/o Late Jokhuram Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Soniya Bai, R/o Near Tarbahar Fatak, Tarbahar, Bilaspur District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

5 - Kanni Lal S/o Late Shri Jokhuram Aged About 28 Years R/o Aamgaon P. S. Ramanujganj, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

6 - Basanti W/o Shri Subhash Aged About 24 Years R/o Angapur, P.S. Patna, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants

¶12

versus

¶13

2

¶14

1 - Ashok Das S/o Late Pradhan Das Aged About 23 Years R/o Keshav Nagar, P. S. Vishrampur, Distt. Surajpur Driver of Motorcycle No. C G 15 C R 2606.

¶15

2 - Neeta Devi Wd/o Late Omprakash Gupta Aged About 34 Years R/o Keshav Nagar, Vishrampur, Distt. Surajpur wrongly mentioned as Distt. Vishrampur Owner of Motorcycle No. C G 15 C R 2606, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

3 - United India Insurance Company Limited Divisional Manager, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Insurer of Motorcycle No. C G 15 C R 2606, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

¶17

For the Appellants : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate For Respondents No.3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate

¶18

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)

¶19

Judgment on Board

¶20

03/04/2025

¶21

1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed challenging the award dated 04.09.2017 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh in M.A.C.C.No.16/2015. By the impugned award, the learned tribunal has awarded Rs. 27,84,310/- as compensation to the claimants on account of death of deceased Jokhu Ram Pando in an unfortunate accident which took place on 02.09.2014

¶22

3

¶23

by rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1 driver by offending vehicle i.e., Bajaj Discover Motorcycle bearing Regn. No C.G. 15 CR/2606 owned by respondent no.2 owner and insured with respondent no. 3 /Insurance company.

¶24

2 . As per the pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, the deceased was working as driller in SECL Reher Colliery, Latori and at the time of accident, he was aged about 44 years. On the basis of monthly salary being drawn by him, the total amount of Rs.60,50,000/- was claimed.

¶25

3. Learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents brought on record, held the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.20,789/- after deduction of Rs2613/- towards PF thereby the annual income was worked out to Rs.2,49,478.92. Considering the age group of deceased, 30% of income i.e., Rs.74,843.67 towards future prospects was further added and after adding the future prospects, annual income of the deceased was worked out to Rs.3,24,322.59 (2,49,478.92 plus 74,843.67) and after deducting 20% income tax i.e., Rs.64,864.51, the income of deceased was worked out to Rs.2,59,458.08 (3,24,322.59 minus 64,864.51). After deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses I.e., 64,864.52, the annual loss of dependency was calculated as Rs.1,94,593.56. Further by adopting multiplier of 14, the total dependency was worked to Rs. 27,24,310/(1,94,593.56 x 14). In addition, Rs.60,000/- was granted under the other heads. Thus a total compensation of Rs.27,84,310/- (27,24,310 plus 60,000) was granted to the claimants with interest @ 7.5% per

¶26

4

¶27

annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual payment and the appellant-Company was directed to pay the same.

¶28

4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimant submits that the Tribunal has wrongly deducted Rs. 2613/- towards PF from the gross income of the deceased though the amount of PF will not come within the periphery of the MV Act for determining the amount of compensation. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Kishori Pathak Vs. Ludaru Ram Mourya (AIR OnLine 2020 Chh 921) . He further submits that 20% of the income tax has wrongly been deducted from the income of the deceased which is not just and proper and further the Tribunal has granted meagre amounts under the other heads. He therefore submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably.

¶29

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.3 supports the award and submits that the compensation has rightly been awarded and does not require any interference by this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. 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. 8. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given

¶30

5

¶31

facts and circumstances of the case.

¶32

9. From the evidence it is clear that the deceased was working as Driller in SECL Colliery, Latori and as per pay/salary Certificate Ex. P-8 his gross income was Rs.25,747.22 per month. However, after deducting PF of Rs.2613/- from the gross income, the Tribunal has considered the income of deceased as Rs,20,789/- per month and on that basis, the compensation has been calculated.

¶33

10. The said deduction appears to against the principles laid down in Vimal Kanwar and others v. Kishore Dan reported in (2013) 7 SCC 476 wherein the Supreme Court held that the amount of PF, Pension, Insurance receivable by the claimants do not come within the periphery of M.V. Act to be termed as pecuniary advantage and therefore, those amounts are not liable for deduction. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted below :

¶34

“18 . The first issue is “whether provident fund, pension and insurance receivable by the claimants come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as ‘pecuniary advantage’ liable for deduction.

¶35

19 . The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before this Court in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC, (1999) 1 SCC 90 . In the said case, this Court held that provident fund, pension, insurance and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits etc., are all a “pecuniary advantage” receivable by the heirs on account of one’s death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. Such an amount will not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “pecuniary advantage” liable for deduction.”

¶36

11. Applying the analogy laid down in Vimal Kanwar’s case (supra) to

¶37

6

¶38

the facts of the present case, the amount of Rs. 2613/- per month being deducted from the salary of deceased towards P.F. vide Ex.P-8, is not liable to be deducted from the income of deceased for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.23,402 (20,789 plus Rs.2,613). The deceased was aged about 44 years on the date of accident. Considering the possibility of his earning in future and all relevant factors this Court holds the monthly income of the deceased to Rs. 23,402/- plus 30% future prospects Rs. 7021/- = 30,423/-. In the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court is computing the following compensation as below:

¶39

1.	Monthlyincome of the deceased	23,402/-
2.	Futureprospectus@30%	7,021
3.	Total yearly income	30,423 x 3,65,076/-	12 =
4.	Income tax up-to 2,50,000/- = Nil. From 2,,50,001 to Rs.5,00,000 lakhs 10% for the financial year 2014-15.	11,508/-
5.	Total Income	3,53,568/-
6.	Personal expenditure(1/4)	88,392/-
7.	Net Income	2,65,176/-
9.	Multiplier of 14 applied to assess total loss of dependency	37,12,464/-
10.	Funeral expenses	15,000/-

¶40

7

¶41

11.	Loss of estate	15,000/-
12	Filial consortium or Loss of love and affection for 6 dependents : 40,000 x 6	2,40,000/-
13.	Total compensation	39,82,464/-

¶42

12. Thus the total compensation is recomputed to Rs.39,82,464/from which after deduction of Rs.27,84,310/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.11,98,154/-.

¶43

13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed . The claimants are entitled for enhanced amount of Rs. 11,98,154/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realisation. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.

¶44

14. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants reside.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge

¶47

Rao

Soniya Bai v. Ashok Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soniya Bai v. Ashok Das

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

Ramnarayan Kevat Vs Jayanti Bai

Radha Krishna Motwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Meera Bai Nag Vs Shridharan Nair

Arun Yadav Vs Smt. Shashi Prabha Diwan Joujay

The Oriental Insurance Company Private Limited Vs Shri Rakesh Verma

The Oriental Insurancen Company Limited Vs Om Prakash Yadav