Chattisgarh High Court
Ashok Prasad Tamrakar vs Md. Sajid Ansari on 2 April, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
Page No.1
2025:CGHC:15410
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 624 of 2020
1. Ashok Prasad Tamrakar S/o Jageshwar Sao Aged About 48 Years
By Caste Thathera, R/o Sakin Near Bazardand, Kunkuri Tehsil And
Police Station Kunkuri District Jashpur Chhattisgarh,
2. Pooja Tamrakar D/o Ashok Prasad Tamrakar Aged About 23 Years
By Caste Thathera, R/o Sakin Near Bazardand, Kunkuri Tehsil And
Police Station Kunkuri District Jashpur Chhattisgarh,
3. Nihal Tamrakar D/o Ashok Prasad Tamrakar Aged About 18 Years
By Caste Thathera, R/o Sakin Near Bazardand, Kunkuri Tehsil And
Police Station Kunkuri District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District :
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant(s)
versus
1. Md. Sajid Ansari S/o Late Naeem Ansari Aged About 37 Years R/o
Village Sakin Ajirma, Near Central School Police Station Jainagar
District Surajpur Chhattisgarh .......Driver,
2. Saiyyad Asgar Ali S/o Saiyyad Ahmad Ali Aged About 37 Years R/o
Sakin New Bus Stand Pandari, Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh ........Owner,
3. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Tara Complex, G. E. Road,
Power House Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh ........Insurer,
... Respondent(s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant : Mr. Nitesh Sahu on behalf of
Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 & 2 : None.
For Respondent No.3 : Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on
behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Adv.
——————————————————————————————-
Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Judgment On Board
02/04/2025
1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking
Digitally
signed by
enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Additional
NISHA NISHA
Date:
DUBEY
DUBEY 2025.04.09
09:48:53
+0530 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kunkuri, District Jashpur (for
Page No.2short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 27.11.2019
passed in MACT Case No.12/2018.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 12.05.2017 the Seema
@ Sunita Devi (since deceased) was returning from Raipur to
her home situated in village village Kunkuri in a bus of Royal
Bus bearing registration number CG04-EA-0364. Driver of bus
drove it at high speed, rashly and negligently which resulted in
overturning in a field beside the road near village Lahpatra due
to which she sustained grievous injuries on her stomach, chest,
left hand and other parts of the body. She was taken to
Lakhanpur Health Centre where she was given primary
treatment and thereafter looking to seriousness of injuries
sustained by her, she was referred to Holy Cross Hospital,
Ambikapur. Thereafter, said Seema was hospitalized in Jeevan
Jyoti Hospital, Ambikapur, where she died during treatment on
13.05.2017. In connection with the said accident, First
Information Report No.89/2017 dated 01.06.2017 was
registered in Police Station Lakhanpur under Sections 279,
304A IPC against non-applicant No.1.
3. Non-applicant No.1 & 2 / respondents No.1 & 2 herein did not
appear before the Claims Tribunal and therefore, they were
proceeded ex-parte.
4. Non-applicant No.3- Insurance Company submitted its written
statement denying the averments made in application. On the
date of accident, non-applicant No.1 was not having valid and
effective driving license to drive offending vehicle and further,
Page No.3
the offending vehicle was plied on road without there being
valid permit and fitness. Since the offending vehicle was plied
in violation of essential conditions of insurance policy, therefore,
the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured.
5. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the pleadings and
evidence placed on record (oral and documentary both) by the
respective parties has arrived at the conclusion that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending
vehicle by its driver; there was no violation of any conditions of
insurance policy; since the claimant failed to prove income and
employment of deceased as per law, therefore, treating the
deceased to be a housewife assessed her monthly income as
Rs.3750/- (Rs.125/- per day) and consequently, allowed claim
application in part; awarded compensation of Rs.5,69,116/-
along with interest @ 9% p.a. and fastened liability upon non-
applicant No.3/respondent No.3 herein to satisfy the impugned
award.
6. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellant submits that the
claimants in their evidence have specifically stated that on the
date of accident, deceased was running a general store in the
name and style of ‘Maa Shringarika General Store’ and earning
Rs.20,000/- 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.3750/- on
notional basis. He submits that in absence of documentary
proof of income of deceased, income should have been
Page No.4
assessed as per minimum wage fixed under the Minimum
Wages Act. He submits that the deceased was married and
there are three family members, who are appellants before this
Court, therefore, the Claims Tribunal ought to have deducted
one-third in stead of one-half towards personal and living
expenses of deceased. He further submits that the Claims
Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of loss of
consortium. Hence, he prays that this appeal may be allowed
and the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 argues that the
amount of compensation as assessed and granted by the
learned Claims Tribunal does not call for any interference. He
submits that in case the amount of compensation is enhanced,
interest for the period of delay in filing this appeal may not be
awarded.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
of Claims Tribunal.
9. As regards the income of deceased, the appellants had though
asserted that deceased was running a general store and was
earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but no documentary evidence
had been adduced to substantiate such claim. Therefore, relying
upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Dr. Balram Prasad vs Dr. Kunal Saha and others, reported in
(2014) 1 SCC 384, the Claims Tribunal has proceeded to
assessed the compensation by treating the deceased to be a
housewife. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with
Page No.5
approach adopted by the Claims Tribunal in assessing
compensation payable to the claimants. However, monthly
income of Rs.3,750/- as assessed by the Claims Tribunal on the
premise that the deceased being a house wife was rendering
domestic services, is on lower side.
10. A house-wife is required to perform many duties, as held by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa Versus State
of Bihar, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 197. Value of services of a
house-wife cannot be equated with that of a daily wager.
Services rendered by a housewife are multifarious. She renders
invaluable services in her various facets/roles in a home. She
not only takes care of all the requirements of her husband,
children and other family members by preparing food, washing
clothes etc. but she is a person who is available round the clock
to all the family members. In this manner, a domestic servant /
maidservant cannot be a substitute for a wife or a mother to
render selfless services to her husband and children.
11. In the case of Rajendra Singh & ors vs National Insurance
Co. Ltd. & ors, reported in (2020) 7 SCC 256, the Apex Court
ascertained the Notional Income of the deceased housewife,
who expired in a motor vehicle accident dated 25.12.2012, as
Rs. 5,000/-. Recently, in case of Arvind Kumar Pandey & ors
vs. Girish Pandey, reported in (2025) 2 SCC 145, Hon’ble
Supreme Court has settled that the direct or indirect income of a
homemaker cannot be less than the prevailing Minimum Wages
of the State at the time of the accident.
Page No.6
12. The Division Bench of this Court in MAC No.334/2014 (SR
Chaturvedi & ors vs. Ranjit Choudhary & ors) while dealing with
identical issue has held thus:-
“14. In the instant case, the date of accident is
30.01.2011. Even if, it is taken that the deceased was a
housewife, but then the work performed by a housewife
for his family cannot be considered to be less than the
income of an ordinary manual labour.”
13. Thus, it is now well established that notional income of the
deceased housewife, who has been rendering gratuitous
services to the household, may be taken not less than prevailing
Minimum Wages as notified by the State, depending upon the
facts and circumstances of the case.
14. In case at hand, accident took place on 12.5.2017. Keeping in
mind the above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court; the
multifarious role that a housewife discharges and considering
the minimum wages notified for unskilled worker by the
Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act for ‘C’
category cities for the period from 01.04.2017 to 30.9.2017,
which was Rs.7,800/- it would be just and equitable to assess
the notional income of the deceased to be Rs.7,800/- per month.
15. Addition of 40% towards future prospects and multiplier of 15
has correctly applied by the Claims Tribunal. However,
deduction of one-half towards personal expenses of deceased is
not as per law settled. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla
Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & anr, reported in (2009)
Page No.7
6 SCC 121 has held that where number of dependent family
members is 2 to 3, one-fourth is to be deducted from the
assessed income of deceased towards personal and living
expenses. In case at hand, there are three claimants, who are
appellants before this Court. Hence, in my opinion, the Claims
Tribunal has committed an error in determining the dependency
of the deceased by deducting 1/2, which should have been at
1/3rd . It is ordered accordingly.
16. The Claims Tribunal while assessing compensation payable to
the claimants have not awarded any amount to the claimants/
appellants herein under the head loss of consortium. As per
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16
SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited
versus Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, reported in
(2018) 18 SCC 130, a husband who lose his wife in a road
accident is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards spousal
consortium and the children are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each
upon premature death of a parent. As appellant No.1 is the
husband and appellants No.2 and 3 are children of deceased,
who died in a road accident, therefore, they are entitled for a
sum of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of loss of consortium. It
is ordered accordingly.
17. Believing the medical documents and bills filed by appellants
as Ex.A-19, 20, 21 and 30, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a
sum of Rs.26616/- towards medical expenses as against total
Page No.8
claim of Rs.28,217/-. The Claims Tribunal disallowed Rs.1600/-
out of total bill amount mentioned in Final Bill marked as Ex.A-
29. Perusal of Bill Ex.P-29 would show that there was discount
of Rs.1600/- and the said amount was not paid by claimants.
Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal has
corrected deducted Rs.1600/- and it needs no interference.
Thus, the compensation granted under the head of medical
expenses is hereby maintained.
18. The Claims Tribunal has disallowed claim of Rs.36244/- for the
damages of articles purchased by deceased from Raipur market
on the ground that claimants failed to prove the purchase bills of
Ex.A-33 & 34 by examining the trader or shopkeeper who had
issued the same. It is well settled that the documents relied
upon by a party in support of his case is required to be proved
and mere filing of the same is not sufficient to prove its content.
Under these circumstances, rejection of claim of appellants for
damages of articles purchased is based on proper appreciation
of material available on record and the same needs no
interference.
19. For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of
compensation payable to the claimants/appellants.
20. Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.7,800/- per
month, as held in preceding paragraph, and after adding 40%
towards future prospects, monthly income of deceased would
come to Rs.10,920/- (7800+3120) and annual income would be
Rs.1,31,040/- (10920×12). After deducting one-third towards
Page No.9
personal and living expenses of deceased, as held above,
annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.87,360/-.
Applying multiplier of 15, as rightly done by the Claims
Tribunal, the loss of dependency would be Rs.13,10,400/-
(87360×15). Besides this, appellant No.1 is entitled for a sum
of Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium; appellants No.2 &
3 are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards parental
consortium being children of deceased. In addition to aforesaid
amount, appellants are also entitled to get a sum of
Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for loss of
estate. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to
Rs.14,60,400/- (1310400 + 120000 + 30,000) recoverable from
the respondents, jointly and severally. This additional amount
of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of
filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the
conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain
intact.
21.Any amount already paid to claimants/ appellants as
compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of
compensation as calculated above.
22.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned
award stands modified to the extent indicated above.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
nisha
[ad_1]
Source link