Chattisgarh High Court
Nirbhay Ram Mandavi vs Kannan @ Kanam on 2 April, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2025:CGHC:15407
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 604 of 2020
1. Nirbhay Ram Mandavi S/o Shri Anand Ram Mandavi Aged
About 45 Years R/o Village Lilejhar Pachripara, Thana
Charama, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh.
2. Smt. Ahil Bati Mandavi W/o Shri Nirbhay Ram Mandavi Aged
About 40 Years R/o Village Lilejhar Pachripara, Thana
Charama, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh.
3. Ku. Nandani Mandavi D/o Shri Nirbhay Ram Mandavi Aged
About 13 Years Minor Through Father Nirbhay Ram Mandavi ,
Aged About 45 Years, S/o Shri Anand Ram Mandavi.
All R/o Village Lilejhar Pachripara, Thana Charama, District
Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh.
... Appellants/Claimants
versus
1. Kannan @ Kanam S/o Shri Selvrasu Koundar R/o 1/18, A
Kurrmaba Street, Post Methupalyam, Police Station Museri,
District Tiruchi, State Tamilnaidu...(Driver),
2. Smt. A. Manju W/o Shri P. Suresh R/o House No. 1/73, A. N.
Padpalyam, Post Devnankuruchi Taluka, Tiruchegod, District
Namakal Tamilnaidu. (Owner).
3. United India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch
Manager , Branch Office Arjuni Bathena Chowk, Sinha
Complex, Dhamtari , District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh...(Insurer)
... Respondents
2
For Appellants : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate.
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order On Board
02/04/2025
1. Today the matter is listed for orders on default as pointed out
by the office in the cross-objection filed by respondent No.3.
Defaults pointed out by the office are that respondent No.3
has not filed copy of receipt of mandatory deposit of
Rs.25,000/- along with cross-objection and certified copy of
the order passed under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
19888 is also not filed.
2. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 Insurance Company
would submit that as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court
in case of United Insurance Company Limited vs. Shila
Datta & ors, reported in (2011) 10 SCC 509 wherein it was
held that if the insurer is already a respondent (having been
impleaded as a party respondent), it need not seek the
permission of the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Act of
1988 to raise grounds other than those mentioned in Section
149 (2) of the Act of 1988. He further submits that on
3.6.2020 respondent No.3-Insurance Company has already
deposited the entire amount of compensation before the
Claims Tribunal, vide application dated 26.6.2020 filed before
the Claims Tribunal along with Cheque amounting to
3
Rs.9,23,931/- and the same has been placed before this
Court by way of Covering Memo dated 2.4.2025.
3. In light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shila
Dutta (supra) and considering the fact that the impugned
award has already been satisfied, both the defaults, as
pointed by the office, are hereby overruled.
4. There is no dispute regarding the accident, cause of accident
as also liability to indemnify the insured owner of offending
vehicle. Sole question involves in this appeal for consideration
is whether or not the Claims Tribunal has awarded adequate
compensation to the claimants. In such circumstance,
issuance of notice to respondent Nos.1 & 2, who are
registered owner and driver of offending vehicle, is dispensed
with.
5. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is being heard
finally at the admission stage itself.
6. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned 2nd
Additional Motor Accidental Claims Tribunal, Kanker, District
North Bastar Kanker (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide
award dated 30.1.2020 passed in Claim Case No.68/2019.
7. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company has also filed cross-
objection challenging the finding of the Claims Tribunal
4
regarding determination of monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.7800/-.
8. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 06.06.2018 Nand
Kumar (since deceased) along with his friends was travelling
as Labourer in the cabin of bore supporter vehicle. In the
midnight at about 1:00 a.m. i.e. on 7.6.2018, when they were
in village Hatai, non-applicant No.1, driver of vehicle bearing
registration number TN34-Q-3007, due to rash and negligent
driving lost control over the vehicle as a result the vehicle
overturned and fallen to road side ditch. In the said accident,
said Nand Kumar sustained grievous injuries, he was taken to
the hospital where he died during course of treatment. Report
of accident was lodged in concerned police station based on
which case under Section 279, 337, 304A of IPC was
registered. Claimants/appellants herein, who are parents and
sister of deceased, filed application claiming compensation to
the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- under various heads on the ground
that on the date of accident, deceased was 25 years of age,
he was working as Bore Digging Mechanic, earning
Rs.15,000/- per month and they were dependent on earning
of deceased.
9. Non-applicant No.1 & 2 i.e. driver and registered owner of
offending vehicle respectively, filed their reply to claim
application denying averments made therein. It was further
5
pleaded that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was
insured with non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company; non-
applicant No.1 was having valid license and even there was
permit and fitness certificate in favour of offending vehicle and
therefore, in case any liability to pay compensation is
fastened, then the insurance company is liable to indemnify
the same.
10. Non-applicant No.3- Insurance Company also submitted its
written statement denying the averments made in claim
application including the relationship of claimants with the
deceased. It was further pleaded that the particulars of
employment and income of the deceased and the documents
in support thereof have not filed along with application,
therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed. At the time
of accident, driver of offending vehicle was not having
effective and valid driving license and thus there is violation of
conditions of insurance policy, therefore, insurer cannot be
held liable to indemnify the insured.
11. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the pleadings and
evidence placed on record (oral and documentary both) by
the respective parties has arrived at a conclusion that
accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of non-
applicant No.1-driver; there was no violation of any condition
of insurance policy and accordingly, partly allowed claim
6
application, awarded compensation Rs.8,72,400/- along with
interest @ 7% p.a. by assessing monthly income of deceased
as Rs.7800/- on notional basis treating the deceased as
labourer.
12. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submits that the
claimants in their evidence have specifically stated that on the
date of accident, deceased was working as Borewell Digging
Mechanic and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, however, the
Claims Tribunal recording a finding that income of deceased
is not proved as per law, has assessed monthly income of
deceased at Rs.7,800/- on notional basis. He submits that in
absence of documentary proof of income of deceased, the
income of deceased should have been assessed as per
Circular under the Minimum Wages Act. She further argued
that the Claims Tribunal has not added anything in the income
of deceased towards future prospects and nothing has been
awarded for loss of consortium. Hence, the compensation
awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side and
therefore, she prays for suitable enhancement of the same.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent opposing
the submissions of learned counsel for appellants would
submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing monthly
income of deceased at Rs.7,800/- relying on the notification
issued under the Minimum Wages Act by the Competent
7
Authority, Raipur. He submits that deceased was employed
in the State of Rajasthan and minimum wage for unskilled
labourer prevailing in the State of Rajasthan on the date of
accident was Rs.6058/- per month and therefore, the Claims
Tribunal ought to have taken the monthly income of deceased
as Rs.6058/- and not Rs.7800/-. Therefore, he prays for
reassessment of compensation by fixing monthly income of
deceased at Rs.6058/-.
14. Learned counsel for the appellants opposes the above
submission of learned counsel for respondent No.3 and
submits that looking to the nature of work of deceased i.e.
engagement on Borewell Digging Machine, which is attached
with a lorry and the work of digging by Borewell machine is to
be performed on the customer’s site, therefore, submission of
learned counsel for respondent No.3 that income of deceased
ought to have been fixed based on minimum wage prescribed
by the Competent Authority of State of Rajasthan is not
correct.
15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
of the Claims Tribunal.
16. So far as submission of learned counsel for respondent No.3
regarding fixation of income of deceased by the Claims
Tribunal on the basis of minimum wage prevalent in State of
Chhattisgarh and not on the basis of minimum wage prevalent
8
in State of Rajasthan where deceased was employed on the
date of accident, is concerned, as per finding recorded by the
Claims Tribunal the deceased was working as Labourer in the
lorry attached with Borewell Drilling Unit because it is not
proved that deceased was working as Borewell Mechanic,
therefore, the deceased is treated to be unskilled labourer. It
is also not in dispute that deceased was working in the lorry
attached with Borewell digging unit, the work of digging
borewell is to be performed at the site of the party concerned
who wanted to get dug a borewell in his site. Under these
circumstances, it cannot be said that the deceased was
stationed and employed in State of Rajasthan. Looking to
nature of work in which deceased was engaged, which was
not permanent in nature, it cannot be said that the deceased
for his whole life would work in Rajasthan. Hence, considering
that the Act of 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation and in
the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of
the opinion that the Claims Tribunal has not committed any
mistake in assessing income of deceased as Rs.7800/- relying
on the minimum wage prevalent for an unskilled worker in the
State of Chhattisgarh on the date of accident and the same is
hereby affirmed.
17. Perusal of impugned award would reveal that the Claims
Tribunal while assessing income of the deceased has not
9
added anything towards future prospects in the assessed
income of the deceased, whereas as per decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd.
vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that in case where victim of a road
accident was below 40 years of age and not in permanent
employment, there should be addition of 40% of assessed
income of the deceased. In case at hand, there is no dispute
that on the date of accident, the deceased was below 40 years
of age and was not in permanent job, hence, 40% is required
to be added towards future prospects. It is ordered
accordingly.
18. In the present case, the Claims Tribunal has awarded
Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses,
which is appropriate. However, the Claims Tribunal has not
awarded any amount under the head of loss of consortium. In
view of principles of awarding compensation under “loss of
consortium’, as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court Pranay
Sethi‘s case (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, reported
in (2018) 18 SCC 130, appellants No.1 & 2 being parents of
deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each
under the head of loss of consortium. It is ordered accordingly.
19. In the facts of present case where the deceased was 25 years
10
old bachelor, deduction of one-half amount towards his
personal expenses and application of multiplier of 18 have
been rightly made by the learned Claims Tribunal and the
same warrants no interference.
20. For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount
of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants.
21.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.7800/- per
month and after adding 40% towards future prospects
because on the date of accident, age of deceased was 25
years, as held by the Claims Tribunal based on postmortem
report, the monthly income of deceased would come to
Rs.10,920/- and annual income would be Rs.1,31,040/-. Out
of this amount, one-half is to be deducted towards personal
and living expenses of deceased being bachelor and after
deducting one-half, annual loss of dependency would come to
Rs.65,520/-. As the deceased was 25 years, multiplier of 18 is
applicable and therefore, applying multiplier of 18, the loss of
dependency would be Rs.11,79,360/-. Besides this,
appellants No.1 & 2 being parents of deceased are entitled
for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each (80,000/-) under the head of
loss of consortium as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
matters of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Nanu Ram @ Chuharu
Ram (supra). In addition to aforesaid amount, appellants are
also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses
11
and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate. Thus, total amount of
compensation comes to Rs.12,89,360/- (11,79,360 + 80,000
+ 30,000) recoverable from the respondents, jointly and
severally. This amount of compensation shall carry interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of application till actual
payment is made.
22.Any compensation disbursed to appellants pursuant to the
impugned award shall be adjusted. Rest of the conditions
mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact.
23.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned
award stands modified to the extent indicated above.
However, the cross-objection preferred by respondent No.3 is
SYED
ROSHAN hereby dismissed.
ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN Sd/- ZAMIR ALI (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-
[ad_1]
Source link