Surekha Sahu Vs Vinit Kumar @ Lal Sahu

4 - Bishahin Bai W/o Late Badku Sahu Aged About 65 Years Appellant No.2 and 3 are Minors, Through Legal Guardian Mother Surekha Sahu, All are R/o Village - Lidari, Thana And Tahsil - Takhatpur District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

--- Appellants

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - Vinit Kumar @ Lal Sahu S/o Heturam Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village - Nagoi Thana And Tahsil - Takhatpur District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle C.G. No. 10 / P. / 6134).

¶13

2 - Satyanarayan Sahu S/o Kishan Ram Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village - Nagoi Thana And Tahsil - Takhatpur District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle C.G. No. 10 / P. / 6134).

¶14

--- Respondent(s)

¶15

For Appellants : Ms. Shaleeni Jangade, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Ms. Deblina Maity, Advocate

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶17

Order On Board

¶18

12/06/2025

¶19

BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN

¶20

Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned 5^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 28.02.2020 passed in Claim

¶21

2

¶22

Case No.610/2019 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.11,94,000/- as compensation in a death case.

¶23

Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that a claim application was filed by the appellants/claimants being the legal representative of the deceased Laxmi Prasad Sahu, stating that on 22.04.2019, Laxmi Prasad Sahu was serving Gupchup Chaat to customers by putting up a roadside cart near Polytechnic College situated on TakhatpurBilaspur Main Road. At about 2 o'clock in the afternoon, the nonapplicant No.1 by driving his motor cycle No. CG 10 P 6134 in rash and negligent manner came on the wrong side and dashed Laxmi Prasad Sahu, causing an accident, due to which Laxmi Prasad Sahu suffered very serious and fatal injuries on various parts of his body including his head. He was immediately admitted to Surya Hospital, Bilaspur where he died during treatment on 26.04.2019. It was further pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased was of 38 years of healthy man and was running food/gup-chup cart and was earning Rs.700/- per day. The claimants being the widow, children and mother of deceased were dependent upon the deceased. The claimants sought total compensation of Rs.51,61,000/- from the respondents under different heads.

¶24

The Insurance Company along with owner and driver of the offending vehicle filed their reply to the claim application and resisted the claim of appellants/claimants. The learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and after recording the evidence of the respective parties, passed the impugned award.

¶25

3

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation in a fatal accident case. Learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month overlooking the date of accident i.e. 22.04.2019, the amount awarded under other conventional head is also on lower side. She also contended that any amount towards medical expenses has not been awarded overlooking the fact that the deceased suffered motor accidental injuries on 22.04.2019 and died on 26.04.2019 while he was under treatment. The appellants have also filed some medical documents available with them of Surya Hospital, however, the learned Claims Tribunal failed to award any amount towards medical expenses. Hence, the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced.

¶27

Learned counsel for respective respondents vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal considering that the claimants failed to prove the nature of occupation and income of the deceased has rightly assessed the income of the deceased on notional basis, which does not call for any interference. She submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is on proper appreciation of facts and evidence available on record, which does not call for any interference.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record.

¶29

Perusal of the record would show that the claimants in the application have pleaded that the deceased was engaged in self business and

¶30

4

¶31

earning Rs.700/- per day, however, the claimants could not be able to prove the said pleadings and the income of the deceased by producing admissible piece of evidence. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased on notional basis. When the claimants could not be able to prove the nature of occupation and income of a person/deceased, it is for the Tribunal and the Court to assess the income of the deceased considering his age, cost of living, price index, wage structure prevailing within the area etc. to be taken into consideration. The Tribunal and Courts may also take help of minimum wages prescribed by the State and prevailing on the date of accident. Minium wages of labour during that period was fixed by the Authority under the Act of 1948 was Rs.8320/- per month.

¶32

In the case at hand, the claimants could not able to prove the nature of occupation and the income of the deceased by clinching evidence. In the said facts of the case I am of the view that the ends of justice would be served if the income of the deceased is taken on notional basis treating him to be doing the work of labourer as Rs.8,320/- per month. It is ordered accordingly.

¶33

The Claims Tribunal has rightly added 40% of the assessed income towards the loss of future prospects for which the appellants are entitled for. The Claims Tribunal has further rightly applied the deduction of ¼ and the multiplier of 15, which does not call for any interference.

¶34

Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- to the appellant No.1 towards loss of consortium, however, the amount under the head

¶35

5

¶36

of loss of consortium is not awarded to the appellant No.2 to 4 for which they are entitled in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130.

¶37

Learned Claims tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- each under the head of funeral expenses and loss of estate. However, according to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , it should be Rs.15,000/- on each of the heads. It is ordered accordingly. Considering the documents enclosed and the period of treatment, I find it appropriate to further award an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the claimants towards medical expenses.

¶38

For the forgoing discussions the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellants required recomputation, which is as under :-

¶39

SN	Head		Amount(in Rs.).
1.	Annual income	:	8,320 x 12 = 99,840.00
2.	Addition of 40% towards future prospects	:	98,840.00 + 39,936.00 = 1,38,776.00
3.	1/4 deduction towards personal expenses	:	1,38,776.00 – 34,694.00= 1,04,082.00
4.	Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 15	:	1,04,082 x 15= 15,61,230.00
5.	For loss of consortium to the appellants No.1 to 4 (spousal, parental and filial) Rs.40,000/- each(40,000 x 4 = 1,60,000/-.	:	1,60,000.00
6.	For funeral expenses	:	15,000.00
7.	For loss of estate	:	15,000.00
8.	For medical expenses	:	10,000.00
	Total Compensation	:	17,61,230.00

¶40

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.17,61,230.00. Any amount paid to

¶41

6

¶42

the appellants as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶43

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

¶44

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶45

Balram

Surekha Sahu v. Vinit Kumar @ Lal Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surekha Sahu v. Vinit Kumar @ Lal Sahu

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. Hembati Sahu Vs Virendra Kumar Sahu

Smt. Sondulari Sahu Vs Uttam Kumar Singh Yadav

Khaniyalal Ravte Vs Mohit Kumar Yadav

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Smt.Kaushilya Bai

Dhaleshwar Vs Vishnu Das

Smt. S. Laxmi Vs Ravikant Sharma