The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Narayan Das Vaishanv

Narayan Das Vaishanv S/o Devidas Vaishnav Aged About 51 Years R/o Gram Radhakrishna Temple Old Basti, Ward No.06 Kharasiya, Thana Tehsil Kharasiya District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶11

Pramila Vaishnav W/o Narayan Das Vaishnav Aged About 41 Years R/o Gram Radhakrishna Temple Old Basti, Ward No.06 Kharasiya, Thana Tehsil Kharasiya District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶12

Krishna Vaishnav S/o Naravan Vaishnav Aged About 5 Years R/o Gram Radhakrishna Temple Old Basti, Ward No.06 Kharasiya, Thana Tehsil Kharasiya District Raigarh (C.G.) (Claimants)

¶13

Raja Babu Chaudhary S/o Naresh Prashad Chaudhary Aged About 27 Years R/o Gram Kachgawa, Thana Vijayraogarh District Katni (M.P.) (Driver Of Truck C.G./04/m.F./4989)

¶14

Dinesh Gupta S/o Narayan Kumar Gupta Aged About 40 Years R/o Gram In Front Of Raja Partidar New Timber Market Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Appellant : Mr. Raghvendra Verma, Advocate. on behalf of Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate

¶17

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶18

Judgment On Board

¶19

2

¶20

3.2.2026

¶21

1) The appellant–Insurance Company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award passed by learned Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 70/2021 dated 11.7.2022, by which liability to pay a total compensation of Rs. 15,21,200/- has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

¶22

2) Facts of the present case are that on 30.7.2020, Bhargav Vaishnav was returning to Kharsiya in a car. At about 9:00pm, offending vehicle – Truck dashed said car. In the accident, Bhargav Vaishnav sustained injuries and died during course of treatment. Claimants, who are the parents and younger brother of deceased moved claim application claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 72,82,000/-. They pleaded that deceased was aged 22 years and was earning Rs. 12,000/- per-month working as driver. Insurance Company filed reply and denied the contents of claim application. Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter award was passed.

¶23

3) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that deceased was a bachelor, therefore learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/2 dependency towards personal and living expenses of deceased but learned Tribunal committed error of law while deducting 1/3 dependency. He prays to modify the award

¶24

3

¶25

accordingly.

¶26

4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 respondent would oppose. He submits that learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and there is no scope for interference.

¶27

5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶28

6) Admittedly, age of the deceased was 22 years at the time of accident. The claimants failed to lead evidence to prove the income of deceased. Accordingly, Claims Tribunal has applied the minimum wages matrix to assess the notional monthly income of the deceased and arrived at the figure of Rs. 7,000/- per month which in my opinion is just and proper. On other conventional heads, Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate and Rs. 80,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus, Learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation.

¶29

7) Regarding the deduction for the personal and living expenses of the deceased, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma & Others Vs Delhi Transport Corp. & Another¹ has held that ‘where deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependent, and 50% would

¶30

1 . (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶31

4

¶32

be treated as personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family’ . It is further held that ‘ where family of bachelor is large and he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning siblings, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to 1/3’ . Relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced herein below:-

¶33

32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.

¶34

8) In the present case, claimants are the parents and younger sibling of deceased. They specifically pleaded that they were dependent on the income of deceased and Insurance Company could not prove the contrary, therefore learned Tribunal rightly deducted 1/3 dependency towards personal and living expenses of deceased.

¶35

9) In light of the foregoing discussion and the settled legal principle established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no case is made out to interfere with the award impugned. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed . No order as to cost(s).

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶38

A j i n k y a

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Narayan Das Vaishanv

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Narayan Das Vaishanv

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

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Uttara Sahu (Banpela)

Shri Ashok Kumar Yadav Prop. Vs Dcit

Manish Travels Vs State Transport Authority

Kripa Ram Patel Vs Naib Tahsildar

Smt. Triloka Vs Keshav Kumar Sahu

Balram Prasad Vs Naib Tahsildar