Smt. Ankumari Sahu Vs Mannulal Sahu

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:31167

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 966 of 2019

¶6

1 - Smt. Ankumari Sahu Wd/o Late Mohit Ram Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Vivekanand Nagar Colony Dhamtari Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ........Claimants, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - Kumari Dimple Sahu D/o Late Mohitram Sahu Aged About 2 Years (Minor) Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Ankumari Sahu Wd/o Late Mohitram Sahu. R/o Vivekanand Nagar Colony Dhamtari Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - Mannulal Sahu S/o Khubiram Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Kurra (Patewa), Police Station Gobra Nayapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ......(Driver Of Offending Vehicle Metador Bearing Registration No. C. G. 04-Jd-9366) .....Non Applicants., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - M/s Gurunanak Industries Through Sandeep Dhamejani S/o Nanakram Dhamejani, R/o Dhamtari Road, Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ........Owner Of Offending Vehicle Metador Bearing Registration No. C. G. 04-Jd- 9366, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, L. I. C. Campus Ground Floor, Lic Building, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ........Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Metador Bearing Registration No. C. G. 04 Jd- 9366, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Smt. Rambai Sahu W/o Heeralal Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Vivekanand Nagar Colony, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY

¶16

2

¶17

For Appellants : Ms. Devanshi Chakraborty, Advocate on behalf of Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, advocate

¶18

For Respondents : Mr. Pravin Tulsiyan, Advocate

¶19

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

¶20

Order On Board

¶21

08/07/2025

¶22

This appeal is filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 08.01.2019 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 152/2017.

¶23

Facts of the case in brief are that, on 03.06.2017 at around 05:30 P.M., when Mohitram Sahu (since deceased) was sitting on a stationary motorcycle parked infront of HDFC Bank, Rajim at that time, offending vehicle i.e Metador bearing registration no. CG 04 JD 9366, driven by the Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed Motiram Sahu and caused accident. In the said accident, Motiram Sahu suffered serious injuries, he was taken to hospital for treatment and during treatment, he succumbed to his injuries. Subsequent to the said accident, an FIR was lodged against the Respondent No. 1 bearing Crime No. 103/2017, P.S. Rajim, District - Gariyaband for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶24

The claimants/appellants in the claim application filed before the learned Claims Tribunal have pleaded that the deceased Motiram Sahu was aged about 32 years on the date of accident, working as Field Credit Assistant in Balod Branch of Annapurna Micro Finance Private Limited and was earning Rs. 12,000/-. Due to the death of Motiram

¶25

3

¶26

Sahu, they have lost their bread winner, claimed Rs. 49,10,000/- as compensation.

¶27

Non-Applicant No. 2, despite service of notice, did not appear before the Tribunal, therefore, he was proceeded ex parte.

¶28

Non-Applicant No. 1 submitted his reply to the claim application denying the pleadings of claim application and submitted that the NonApplicant No. 1 was possessing valid and effective driving license. There was valid permit of the offending vehicle and was insured with the Non-applicant No. 3 and therefore, liability to pay compensation is upon Non-applicant No. 3.

¶29

The Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance company submitted its reply denying the pleadings made in the claim application and pleaded that the accident was on account of negligence of deceased itself. NonApplicant No. 1 was not possessing valid and effective driving license, permit and fitness certificate of the offending vehicle which is breach of conditions of insurance policy. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation.

¶30

The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the facts and evidence brought on record held that the death of deceased was a result of motor accidental injuries suffered by him due to rash and negligent driving of Non-applicant No. 1, breach of policy conditions not found proved and awarded a sum of Rs. 9,41,856/- to the claimants.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre amount of compensation holding the deceased to be working as Labourer and assessing his income as Rs. 4,176/- only. She submits that the deceased was working in Annapurna Micro Finance Private Limited as Field Assistant and was

¶32

4

¶33

earning Rs. 12,568/- per month and after deduction, he was earning Rs. 11,453/- per month, pay-slip of the deceased is filed as Ex. P/15. Another pay-slip is filed of the month of May, 2017 as Ex. P/16 which is of the Annapurna Micro Finance Private Limited. The designation of the deceased is shown as Assistant Branch Manager. Further, it has been shown payment of consolidated pay of Rs. 9,000/- with arrears of Rs. 1,600/- and net pay as Rs. 10,800/-. she contended that the deceased joined on the higher post of Assistant Branch Manager and therefore, his salary may be enhanced from the salary which he was drawing from the earlier company of the lower post i.e. the Field Credit Assistant. The learned Claims Tribunal has not considered this aspect and has assessed the income on lower side. She further argued that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded the compensation under the head of loss of consortium to all the claimants, but for the Claimant/Appellant No. 1 only. Hence, the amount of compensation may be suitably enhanced.

¶34

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 opposes the submission of the counsel for the appellants and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal found the pay-slips and the attendance register not proved in accordance with law and has assessed the income of the deceased on notional basis, treating him to be a Labourer. In absence of any clinching evidence, learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing the income of the deceased on notional basis, the amount of compensation awarded is just and proper which does not call for any interference.

¶35

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

¶36

5

¶37

Perusal of the record would show that the claimants in the claim application have pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased was working with Annapurna Micro Finance Private Limited and earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. He was about to be promoted on the salary of Rs. 20,000/-. The claimants have submitted the salary-slip of Share Micro Finance Company Limited, Balod as Ex. D/15. The salary-slip is of March, 2017 showing the total earnings of the deceased as Rs. 12,568/- and net payable salary as Rs. 11,453/-, deduction is towards P.F. of employee and employee contribution and L.I.C. premium (SSS). Ex. P/16 is the salary-slip of Annapurna Micro Finance Private Limited wherein, the consolidated pay is mentioned as Rs. 9,000/- and arrears of Rs. 1,800/- and total gross earnings as Rs. 10,800/-. In the salaryslip (Ex. P/16) the date of joining is mentioned as 25.04.2017 on the post of Assistant Branch Manager (Operation). There is mention of payment of salary for 36 paid days. From the contents of the salaryslip, the amount of Rs. 1,800/- is shown towards the arrears. As there cannot be arrears, when the deceased as per the salary-slip has joined only on 25.04.2017 and the salary is paid for 36 days. In the salary-slip, though there is column of other allowances, however, all the columns of allowances have been shown to be Nil.

¶38

The Applicant/Claimant N. 1 is examined as AW-1 and in her evidence, she categorically stated that her husband was working with Share Micro Finance Company Limited for about 06 years and with Annapurna Micro Finance Private Limited for 20 days. One Kamlesh Yadav was examined as AW-2 who in his evidence has stated that he is the Manager at the Balod Branch of Share Micro Finance Company Limited. He produced the attendance register for the month of March,

¶39

6

¶40

2017 and April, 2017. The gross salary-slip of the deceased for the month of March, 2017 was Rs. 12,568/- and for the month of April, 2017 for 17 days, the salary of the deceased was Rs. 9,706/-.

¶41

The learned Claims Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of Applicant/Claimant No. 1 and Kamlesh Yadav (AW-2) as also, the payslips submitted as Ex. P/15 and Ex. P/16 and have assessed the nature of occupation and income of the deceased on notional basis which, in view of the evidence available on record in the opinion of this Court is erroneous. The claimants/applicants to prove the occupation have examined the person under whom the deceased was working i.e. Kamlesh Yadav (AW-2). He also have stated about the gross-salary paid to the deceased which is mentioned in Ex. P/15. The salary-slip bears the signature of Kamlesh Yadav (AW-2).

¶42

Considering entirety of the facts of the case as also, the evidence available on record, it is apparent that the deceased was an educated person and working with Annapurna Micro Finance Private Limited. The last pay-slip which was is available in the records shows the net pay of Rs. 10,800/- and therefore, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased as Rs. 10,800/-. The finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal with regard to the occupation of the deceased to be of Labourer and earning Rs. 4,176/- is not sustainable and accordingly, it is set-aside .

¶43

Accordingly, the income of deceased is assessed as Rs. 10,800/- per month only. The second submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Clams Tribunal erred in not awarding the amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium to all the applicants/claimants.

¶44

7

¶45

Perusal of the impugned award would show that there are 04 claimants i.e. the Applicant No. 1/Widow of the deceased and Applicant No. 2/Child and Applicant No. 3 & 4 are parents of deceased. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 45,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection and Rs. 40,000/- towards the loss of consortium to the Applicant/Claimant No. 1 and Rs. 15,000/- towards the loss of estate. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has specified the other conventional heads and quantified the amount of compensation to be awarded under said heads i.e. loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium. Further, in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram , reported in (2018) 8 SCC has explained the types of consortium and held that the there are three types of consortium i.e. spousal consortium for wife/husband, parental consortium to children and filial consortium to parents of Rs. 40,000/- each. In the case at hand, the Appellants No. 2 is the child of the deceased and the Respondent No. 3 & 4 are parents of the deceased, therefore, they are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of parental and filial consortium respectively (total Rs. 1,20,000/-). It is ordered accordingly.

¶46

As this Court is awarding compensation under the head of loss of consortium to the claimants, therefore, they will not be entitled for the compensation under the head of loss of love and affection as it subsumes under the head of loss of consortium. The claimants will be further entitled for Rs. 15,000/- towards the loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards the funeral expenses. The learned Claims Tribunal justified in applying deduction of 1/4th towards personal and living

¶47

8

¶48

expenses, multiplier of 16 and adding 40% of the assessed income towards the loss of future prospects.

¶49

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

¶50

Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.10,800/- and since at the time of death, the deceased was 32 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.15,120/- (10800 + 4320). Thus annual income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the compensation comes to Rs.1,81,440/(15120 x 12). Out of this amount, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and after deducting 1/4th of the annual income, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,36,080/- (181440 – 45360). By applying multiplier of 16, as applied by the Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency, total loss of dependency would come to Rs.21,77,280/- (1,36,080 x 16). Besides this, Appellants No. 1 to 4 are entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards spousal, parental and filial consortium. 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. 23,67,280/- (21,77,280 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000). This enhanced 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

9

¶53

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

¶54

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

¶55

Certified copy as per rules.

¶56

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

¶57

Dey

Smt. Ankumari Sahu v. Mannulal Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

Smt. Ankumari Sahu v. Mannulal 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

Bhukhan Lal Vishwakarma Vs Hulas Sahu

Kartikram Sahu Vs Durgeshwar Nayak

Ku. Nishtha Pandey Vs Joji Babu Ji

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Milan Bai Sahu

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Rani Vastrakar

Jageshwar Dewangan Vs Noharlal Singh