Branch Manager Vs Arun Kumar Das

¶1

Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.02.12 18:14:28 +0530

1

2026:CGHC:7473

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 251 of 2020

¶7

1 - Arun Kumar Das S/o Late Shri Haval Das Aged About 63 Years R/o Village- Champakpara, Police Station And Tahsil- Sitapur, DistrictSarguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶8

2 - Smt. Kusumlata Das (Died) Through Legal Heirs As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 26-04-2023.

¶9

2.1 - (A) Smt. Gita Kashyap D/o Shri Arun Kumar Das, W/o Shri Vijay Kashyap Aged About 42 Years R/o Sadakpara Pratapgarh, Police Station And Tahsil Sitapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶10

2.2 - (B) Sarita Das D/o Shri Arun Kumar Das Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Sitapur, Police Station And Tahsil Sitapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶11

2.3 - (C) Hemant Kumar Das S/o Shri Arun Kumar Das Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Sitapur, Police Station And Tahsil Sitapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) At Present Detained In Central Jail Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶12

--- Appellant(s)

¶13

versus

¶14

1 - Vimlesh Kumar Dubey S/o Shri Jagdev Prasad Dubey Aged About 46 Years R/o Sargipal Railway Jagdalpur, Police Station- Bodghat, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. (Driver And Owner Of Truck No. C.G.-04/ J.B.5197), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶15

2 - The Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Hotel Laxman Avenue, Medical College Road, Jagdalpur, DistrictBastar, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Truck No. C.G.-04/ J.B.- 5197), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶16

3 - The Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Ambedakar Chowk Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Truck No. C.G.-04/ J.B.- 5197) (Non-Applicants), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶17

2

¶18

--- Respondent(s)

¶19

WITH

¶20

MAC No. 172 of 2020

¶21

1 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Ambedkar Chowk, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶22

2 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, Hotel Laxman Avenue, Medical College Road Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh

¶23

---Appellant(s)

¶24

Versus

¶25

1 - Arun Kumar Das S/o Late Haval Das Aged About 62 Years Resident Of Village- Champakpara, Thana And Tehsil- Sitapur, District- Sarguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶26

2 - Smt. Kusum Lata Das W/o Arun Kumar Das Aged About 55 Years Resident Of Village- Champakpara, Thana And Tehsil- Sitapur, DistrictSarguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶27

3 - Vimlesh Kumar Dubey S/o Jagdev Prasad Dubey Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Village- Sargipal Railway Jagdalpur, Thana Bodghat, District- Bastar Chhattisgarh (Vehicle Driver Co Owner), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶28

--- Respondent(s)

¶29

For Claimants	: Ms. Ananya Chatterjee, Advocate on
	behalf of Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate
For Insurance Company	: Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate

¶30

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶31

Judgment On Board

¶32

10.2.2026

¶33

1) Claimants have filed MAC/251/2020 for enhancement of compensation whereas Insurance Company has filed MAC/172/2020 challenging therein liability pertaining to the award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Sarguja in Case No. 35/2019 dated 23.9.2019 whereby

¶34

3

¶35

learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs. 93,07,440/along with interest @ 7% p.a. on account of death of Dr. Sunil Kumar Das. It is further stipulated that if amount of compensation is not paid within period of 30 days from the date of award, penal interest of 9% per annum would apply on the award amount.

¶36

2) Facts of the present cases are that on 11.6.2018, Dr. Sunil Kumar Das was going from Jagdalpur to Dhamtari in his car with his wife and other relatives. When they reached Balenga High School, the offending vehicle – Truck bearing registration No. CG-04-JB-5197 being driven in rash and negligent manner, dashed the car. In the accident, Dr. Sunil Kumar Das sustained grievous injuries and died on the way to hospital. Claimants, who are the parents of deceased moved claim application and pleaded that deceased was 35 years old Medical Officer (Ayurved) working at Govt. Ayurved Dispensary, Narayanpur earning Rs. 50,000/- per month. They claimed a total sum of Rs. 1,34,00,000/-. Insurance Company filed reply and denied the contents of claim application. Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter, award impugned was passed.

¶37

3) Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that although learned Tribunal has rightly assessed loss of income and awarded fair compensation under conventional heads but granted meager compensation towards loss of consortium overlooking the number of dependents. She prays to modify the

¶38

4

¶39

award accordingly.

¶40

4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that deceased was a Medical Officer (Ayurved) in government dispensary but he was not a salaried person, instead he was working on contract basis and used to receive fixed emolument to the tune of Rs. 49,000/- after deduction of income tax which is evident from salary slip (Ex. P/16) but learned Tribunal has awarded 50% of the established income towards future prospect, instead of 40% as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi¹ . He further submits that the deceased and his wife died in the accident and parents of the deceased have filed the claim petition, therefore learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/2 dependency towards personal and living expenses of deceased instead of 1/3. He contends that learned Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 16 whereas the deceased was aged 35 years 2 months and 9 days on the date of accident and appropriate multiplier should have been 15 as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma Versus Delhi Transport Corporation² . He further contends that learned Tribunal awarded penal interest @ 9% per annum which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.

¶41

1 . (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶42

2 . (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶43

5

¶44

Keshav Bahadur and Others³ . He prays to modify the award accordingly.

¶45

5) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and carefully perused the documents placed on record.

¶46

6) Admittedly, deceased was 35 years old and he was working as Medical Officer (Ayurved) at Govt. Ayurved Dispensary, Narayanpur. Arun Kumar Das (AW/1), father of deceased admitted that deceased was a contractual employee and he was getting fixed salary of Rs. 50,000/- per month. The pay-slip (Ex.P/16) would show that income tax of Rs. 1,000/- was being deducted from his salary, thus it can be safely construed that deceased was a contractual employee receiving fixed monthly emolument Rs. 49,000/-. It appears that learned Tribunal has awarded 50% of established income towards future prospect whereas the deceased not a permanent employee, therefore claimants would be entitled to receive 40% of established income towards future prospect as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), instead of 50% as awarded by Tribunal.

¶47

7) Furthermore, deceased is survived by his parents but learned Tribunal deducted 1/3 dependency towards personal and living expenses of deceased whereas as per the law laid down by the

¶48

3 . (2004) 2 SCC 370

¶49

6

¶50

Apex Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (supra), appropriate deduction under this head would be 1/2 looking to the number of dependents. It is argued by Mr. Agrawal that learned Tribunal erroneously applied multiplier of 16 whereas the deceased was aged 35 years 2 months and 9 days on the date of accident. It is well-settled that the applicable multiplier for the 31–35 age bracket is 16, whereas it is 15 for those aged 36–40. As the deceased was under 36 years of age at the time of the accident, learned Tribunal correctly adopted the multiplier of 16. Consequently, this finding is consistent with precedent set by Apex Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (supra) and warrants no interference.

¶51

8) Evidently, learned Tribunal has awarded a meager sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium overlooking the fact that parents of deceased are entitled to receive separate compensation towards loss of consortium as held by Hon’ble Supreme in the matter of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors .⁴ therefore in my opinion, claimants are entitled to receive compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000 along with an additional sum of 20% i.e. Rs. 48,000/- in total.

¶52

9) A careful perusal of award would reveal that learned Tribunal has imposed penal interest @ 9% per annum. In this regard, Hon'ble

¶53

4 . (2008) 18 SCC 130

¶54

7

¶55

Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.

¶56

Keshav Bahadur and Others⁵ held as under :-

¶57

“ 13. Though Section 110-CC of the Act (corresponding to Section 171 of the new Act) confers a discretion on the Tribunal to award interest, the same is meant to be exercised in cases where the claimant can claim the same as a matter of right. In the above background, it is to be judged whether a stipulation for higher rate of interest in case of default can be imposed by the Tribunal. Once the discretion has been exercised by the Tribunal to award simple interest on the amount of compensation to be awarded at a particular rate and from a particular date, there is no scope for retrospective enhancement for default in payment of compensation. No express or implied power in this regard can be culled out from Section 110-CC of the Act or Section 171 of the new Act. Such a direction in the award for retrospective enhancement of interest for default in payment of the compensation together with interest payable thereon virtually amounts to imposition of penalty which is not statutorily envisaged and prescribed. It is, therefore directed that the rate of interest as awarded by the High Court shall alone be applicable till payment, without the stipulation for higher rate of interest being enforced, in the manner directed by the Tribunal.”

¶58

In view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of Keshav Bahadur (supra), learned Tribunal was justified in imposing interest @ 7% per annum on the award from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization, but has committed illegality in imposing penal interest @ 9% per annum on the award, if compensation is not deposited within a period of one

¶59

5 . (2004) 2 SCC 370

¶60

8

¶61

month before the Tribunal from the date of award. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal regarding penal interest is liable to be and is hereby set aside.

¶62

10) Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is re-

¶63

computing the compensation as below:

¶64

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded Tribunal	by Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Annual Income after deduction of Income Tax	Rs. 5,77,340/-	Rs. 5,88,000/- (@Rs. 49,000 pm)
2.	Annual Income after adding Future Prospect	Rs. 8,66,010/- (@50%)	Rs. 8,23,200/- (@40%)
3.	Annual income after Deduction towards personal expenses	Rs. 5,77,340/- (@1/3)	Rs. 4,11,600/- (@1/2)
4.	Annual Income after applying Multiplier	Rs. 92,37,440/- (@16)	Rs. 65,85,600/- (@16)
5.	Loss of Estate	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs. 15,000/-
6.	Funeral expenses	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs. 15,000/-
7.	Loss of Consortium	Rs. 40,000/-	Rs. 88,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs. 93,07,440/-	Rs. 67,03,600/-

¶65

11) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs. 93,07,440/-

¶66

awarded by the learned Tribunal is reduced to Rs. 67,03,600/- . The Insurance Company is made liable to pay the reduced compensation to the claimants within period of 60 days.

¶67

9

¶68

12) Accordingly, the appeals preferred by Insurance Company and Claimants are allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.

¶69

Sd/Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE

¶70

A j i n k y a

Branch Manager v. Arun Kumar Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Branch Manager v. Arun Kumar 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

Smt. Archana Mishra (in Person) Vs Andhra Bank

Sarabjeet Kaur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajkumar Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Nemin Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kishan Kumar Mohale Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashish Dahariya Vs State of Chhattisgarh