Rajeshwer Prasad Vs Ramchandra Gupta

1 - Ramchandra Gupta S/o Late Sarju Saw Aged About 62 Years Vehicle Owner R/o - Old Post Office Road, Darripara, Ambikapur District - Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Owner)

¶13

2 - Vimlesh Prasad Yadav S/o D.P. Yadav, Vehicle Driver, Permanent Address - Surajpur, Tahsil - Surajpur, Present Address - Baikunthpur District - Koriya Chhattisgarh. (Owner ) (mentioned as per impugned order)

¶14

3 - United India Insurance Company Limited, Brahm Road, Near Kumkum Hotal, Ambikapur District - Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company )

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Appellant (s) : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 & 2 : None appears For Respondent No.3. : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate

¶17

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.09.25 11:03:24 +0530

¶18

-2-

¶19

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

¶20

Judgment On Board

¶21

20/08/2025

¶22

Heard on IA No.1, which is an application for condonation of delay of 299 days in filing the appeal.

¶23

There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1/owner though served. Notice issued to respondent No.2/driver is reported to be unserved.

¶24

Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal fastened liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon nonapplicants jointly and severally and non-applicant No.3/ Insurance Company being insurer of offending vehicle has been held first liable to satisfy the amount of compensation. As non-applicant No.3/respondent No.3 is represented by counsel, application for condonation of delay may be allowed and appeal may be heard finally.

¶25

Submission made by learned counsel for appellants with regard to liability is not opposed by learned counsel for respondent No.3 and hearing of appeal finally at motion stage. He, however, opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellants of condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

¶26

On due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for respective parties, IA No.1 application for condonation of delay is allowed. Delay of 299 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is not raising any

¶28

-3-

¶29

factual dispute but only to calculation and computation made by learned Claims Tribunal, assessing income of deceased as Rs.3000/overlooking the date of accident i.e. 05.04.2017. He submits that as Claims Tribunal has held income as pleaded in claim application to be not proved, Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed income of deceased notionally and accordingly computed compensation.

¶30

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and considering that appeal is filed in the year 2019, I find it appropriate to hear the appeal finally at motion stage.

¶31

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) is filed by appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balrampur at Ramanujgaj, CG. vide award dated 9^th April 2018 passed by in Motor Accident Claim Case No.58 of 2017.

¶32

As in this appeal claimants are seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal in a death case, death of Late Indra Kumar in motor accident, involvement of offending vehicle- Bus No. CG 15-A-2392 owned by non-applicant No.1, driven by non-applicant No.2 and insured by non-applicant No.3 is not in dispute, liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon nonapplicants is also not in dispute, this Court is not dealing with facts as pleaded in claim application, reply to claim application and the facts as adverted by Claims Tribunal in its award disclosing facts of accidents. However, this Court is considering the submissions made by learned

¶33

-4-

¶34

counsel for respective parties on enhancement of amount of compensation.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that deceased on the date of accident was 22 years of age. He was working as Cook and earning Rs.11850/- per month. He submits that as per the impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal, claimants could not prove income as pleaded in claim application by admissible evidence and therefore income of deceased may be assessed notionally in accordance with minimum wages fixed by the competent authority prevalent on the date of accident i.e. 05.04.2017. He contended that according to notification issued by competent authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, minimum wages fixed for ‘unskilled labourer’ was Rs.7800/- per month and therefore income of the deceased be assessed as Rs.7800/- per month. He also contended that Claims Tribunal has erroneously added 15% towards future prospects whereas according to law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 where the deceased was below 40 years and not in permanent employment there shall be addition of 40% to the assessed income towards future prospects. In the case at hand, on the date of accident deceased was aged about 22 years and therefore 40% of the assessed income may be added towards future prospects. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards ‘loss of estate’ and prays for enhancement of amount accordingly.

¶36

Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposes the

¶37

-5-

¶38

submission of learned counsel for the appellants with regard to assessment of income of deceased and submits that Claims Tribunal justified in assessing income of deceased as Rs.3,000/- in absence of proof of income. He further contended that learned Claims Tribunal has deducted 1/3 towards personal and living expenses whereas deceased was un-married and therefore according to decision in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, appropriate deduction towards personal and living expenses would be ½. Amount of compensation awarded to claimants appears to be on higher side in the facts of case. He also pointed out that claimant No.3 sibling will not be entitled for amount of compensation.

¶39

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

¶40

Learned counsel for appellants have not raised any disputed facts before this Court but has made major prayer to assess income of deceased notionally in accordance with minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under Minimum Wages Act. In the notification issued by the competent authority under Minimum Wages Act, as submitted by learned counsel for respective parties for ‘unskilled labourer’ was Rs.7800/- per month and therefore, I find it appropriate to determine the income of deceased as Rs.7800/- per month.

¶41

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) held that where the deceased was below 40 years and not in permanent employment, there shall be addition of 40% to assessed income of

¶42

-6-

¶43

deceased towards future prospects. Learned Claims Tribunal in para22 of its award while computing amount of compensation added only 15% to the assessed income towards future prospects which is erroneous. As deceased on the date of accident was aged 22 years there shall be addition of 40% to the assessed income towards future prospects. It is ordered accordingly.

¶44

Learned Claims Tribunal has deducted 1/3 towards personal and living expenses which in the facts of case where deceased was unmarried is erroneous and appropriate deduction, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) for unmarried person is ½ and, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, there shall be deduction of ½ towards personal and living expenses fo deceased. It is ordered accordingly.

¶45

Application of multiplier of 18 has been correctly applied and is in consonance of the decision in case of Pranay Sethi (supra).

¶46

Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation to claimants under loss of consortium. Award of consortium has been considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and thereafter it has been further clarified in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 .

¶47

In the aforementioned facts of case, parents (claimants No. 1 & 2) are also entitled for loss of filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. In case of Nanu Ram (supra), it has not been held that sibling would also entitled for compensation towards loss of consortium and therefore submission of learned counsel for the appellants to that extent that claimant No.3

¶48

-7-

¶49

being brother of deceased would also entitled for loss of consortium is not sustainable and it is accordingly repelled. Claimants will further be entitled of Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses.

¶50

In the case Pranay Sethi (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that loss of compensation awarded under other conventional heads like ‘loss of estate’, ‘funeral expenses’, and ‘loss of consortium’ is to be increased by 10% in every three years and therefore in the opinion of this Court amount of compensation under other conventional heads is to be enhanced by 10% . It is ordered accordingly.

¶51

As the claimants have been held to be entitled for loss of filial consortium, compensation of ‘love and affection’ subsumes in the compensation awarded under the head ‘loss of consortium’ and, therefore, claimants will not be entitled for compensation as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal under head of loss of ‘love and affection’.

¶52

In the aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to recompute the amount of compensation as under:-

¶53

S. N.	Heads	Compensation
1.	(A)Loss of Income/dependency 7800 x 12 = 93600 (B)Addition towards future prospects @ 40%(93600x 40% =37440) 93600+37440= 131040 :	Rs. 11,79,360
	(C)Deduction of 1/2 towards personal and living expenses ( 131040 x1/2 =65520)
	131040 -65520= 65,520

¶54

-8-

¶55

	(D)Multiplier of 18 65,520 x18=1179360
2.	Funeral Expenses (15000 + 10 % =16500)	: (+) Rs. 16,500
3.	Loss of Estate (15000 + 10 % =16500)	: (+) Rs. 16,500
4.	Filial Consortium to claimants No. 1 & 2 (parents) of Rs.44,000/- each (40000 + 10% = 44000) (44000 x 2 = 88,000/-)	: (+) Rs. 88,000
	Total compensation	: Rs. 13,00,360

¶56

Now the appellants/claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs.13,00,360/- instead of Rs.5,46,800/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

¶57

Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimant shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.

¶58

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

¶59

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

¶60

Praveen

Rajeshwer Prasad v. Ramchandra Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeshwer Prasad v. Ramchandra Gupta

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

Mahendra Kumar Sahu Vs Sanat Kumar Sahu

Smt. Basanti Singh Vs Ramsingh

Reeta Patwa Vs Rehanu Raja @ Bhai Jaan

Manager, United Insurance Company Vs Smt. Manju Jha

Mrs. Keja Bai Patle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Branch Manager, Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Janmati