Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Sunita Lakda vs Uday Chand on 9 April, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:16655
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 770 of 2020
1 - Smt. Sunita Lakda S/o Deepak Lakda Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Gonda,
P. S. Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Pratap Lakda S/o Late Deepak Lakda Aged About 10 Month, Through Legal
Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sunita Lakda, W/o Late Deepak Lakda, Aged About
22 Years. R/o Village Gonda, P. S. Pratappur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh,
District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Vijay S/o Kundi Lakda Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Gonda, P. S. Pratappur
District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Smt. Tilaso W/o Vijay Lakda Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Gonda, P. S.
Pratappur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
5 - Rekha Bharti D/o Vijay Lakda Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Gonda, P. S.
Pratappur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
6 - Surekha Lakda D/o Vijay Lakda Aged About 17 Years Through Legal Natural
Guardian Father Vijay Lakda, R/o Village Gonda, P. S. Pratappur District Surajpur
Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
7 - Aakash Lakda S/o Vijay Lakda Aged About 10 Years Through Legal Natural
Guardian Father Vijay Lakda, R/o Village Gonda, P. S. Pratappur District Surajpur
Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
8 - Dipika Lakda S/o Vijay Lakda Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Gonda, P. S.
Pratappur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
... Appellants
SHUBHAM
DEY
Digitally signed
by SHUBHAM
DEY
2
Versus
1 - Uday Chand S/o Tilakdhari Dewangan Aged About 25 Years Occupation Driver
Vehicle, R/o Ramnagar, P. S. Basantpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj
Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Arun Kumar S/o Amarnath Kushwaha Aged About 25 Years Occupation Owner
Vehicle, R/o Village Near Forest Colony, Ward No. 11, Wadrafnagar, P. S.
Basantpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Shreeram General Insurance Company Ltd. 10008 E-B, Riko Industrial Area
Sitapara, Jaipur Rajasthan 302022, District : Jaipur, Rajasthan
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Sangeeta Soni, Advocate
For Respondent No. : Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate
1&2
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Prashant Sahu, Advocate along with Mr. Sangeet
Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order On Board
09/04/2025
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the
amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its
award dated 31.01.2020 passed by the Additional Motor Accident
Claim Tribunal, Pratappur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.
63/2012.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 11.03.2011, Deepak Lakda in his
vehicle i.e. Pick-up bearing registration no. UP 64 AH 5834 went to
Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh. When he was returning on 13.03.2011
towards Ambikapur, District – Sarguja at about 09:00 A.M., and
reached near a Petrol Pump at Village Jarhi, pickup vehicle met with
accident with the offending truck bearing registration no. WB 25 A 3862
which was standing stationary on the road. Due to the said accident,
3
the Deepak Lakda sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to
injuries on the spot.
3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal
erred in recording a finding that there was contributory negligence on the part
of the driver/deceased Deepak Lakda driving the pick-up bearing registration
no. UP 64 AH 5834 also which met with an accident with the stationary
truck bearing registration no. WB 25 A 3862. She contended that the
truck was standing on the road and there was no sign or signal that the
truck was parked on the road, due to some mechanical failure Hence, it
cannot be said that there was contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased. She further contended that the learned Claims tribunal erred
in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month
only, even after recording a finding that the deceased was working as a
driver and driving the pick-up vehicle bearing no. UP 64 AH 5834,
learned Claims Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the
deceased as pleaded in the claim application. It is also contended that
the learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount towards
the future prospects and further, not awarding the amount of
compensation under the other heads as held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay
Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC
130.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1 & 2 opposes the
submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and would
support the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal.
4
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 also
opposes the submission of the counsel for the appellants and would
submit that the learned Claims Tribunal arrived at a finding that there
was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant considering
the evidence of the claimant’s eye-witness namely Ashok Tirkey, A.W.2
who was also one of the occupants of the vehicle driven by the
deceased at the time of accident. It is next contended that the learned
Claims Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly
assessed the income of the deceased in absence of any clinching,
admissible and documentary evidence brought on record by the
claimants with respect to the income of the deceased. The amount of
compensation calculated/computed and awarded to the
appellants/claimants is just and proper and does not call for any
interference.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the appeal.
7. So far as the ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant
that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in recording a finding that the
deceased was also negligent to the accident to the extent of 50% is
concerned, perusal of the records would show that the
appellants/claimants have filed the copy of the F.I.R. lodged by the
owner of the pick-up vehicle which was being driven by the deceased
as Ex. A-3. Perusal of the said document would show that the accident
occurred in day time i.e. at about 09:00 A.M. in the morning. As per the
statement of Ashok Tirkey A.W. 2., the pick-up dashed from the rear
side of the stationary truck bearing registration no. WB 25 A 3862. The
claimant’s witness i.e. Ashok Tirkey A.W. 2 in the cross-examination
5
has admitted that the truck was standing at the side of the road and
have also stated that the pick-up was running with a higher speed. In
the aforementioned facts of the case, considering the documents
submitted by the claimant’s in his evidence and also evidence of A.W. 2
where it is mentioned that the accident was of day time at about 09:00
A.M. and the truck was standing at the side of the road and the pick-up
vehicle being driven by the deceased dashed the stationary truck from
its rear side, I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the
learned Claims Tribunal that the deceased driver of the pick-up vehicle
was also contributory negligent to the accident of 50%. The said finding
of the learned Claims Tribunal is affirmed.
8. So far as, the second, submission of the counsel for the appellant with
respect to the assessment of the income of the deceased as Rs.
6,000/- per month is concerned, perusal of the evidence brought on
record by the claimant’s in particular, evidence of Ashok Tirkey, A.W. 2
would show that he has not made any submission with respect to the
income of the deceased. In fact, he has stated that he is not aware with
respect to the monthly income of the deceased. The witness namely,
Md. Ramzan A.W. 3 who is the owner of vehicle driven by the
deceased has stated that he has not kept the deceased i.e. Deepak
Lakda as his driver. This witness has also not made any statement with
respect to the income of the deceased, though, the vehicle which met
with the accident and was driven by the deceased on the date of
accident was owned by the witness Md. Ramzan A.W. 3. In absence of
any clinching and admissible proof of evidence with respect to the
income of the deceased, it is for the learned Claims Tribunal to assess
the income of the deceased on notional basis.
6
9. Perusal of the minimum wages as fixed by the competent authority
under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 within the State of Chhattisgarh
would show that the income assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal
is not less than the minimum income fixed by the competent authority
for the skilled labourer. Hence, I do not find any good ground to
interfere with the finding of the monthly income of the deceased as
recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the said ground
raised by the counsel for the appellant is repelled.
10. So far as the third ground raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding any
amount towards the loss of future prospects is concerned, this issue is
now well-settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay
Sethi (Supra). Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned facts has
held that there shall be an addition of 40% of the assessed income
where the age of the deceased is less than 40 years.
11.In the case at hand, undisputedly, the age of the deceased was 24
years on the date of accident and therefore, there shall be an addition
of 40% of the assessed income for the purpose of assessing the
compensation. It is ordered accordingly.
12. So far as the last ground raised by the counsel for the appellant that
the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded the amount of
compensation on other conventional heads as held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and Nanu Ram
(Supra) is concerned, apart from the loss of dependency, the claimants
are entitled for loss of spousal consortium, loss of parental consortium
and loss of filial consortium for the widow, children and parents of the
deceased respectively. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded the
7
loss of consortium to the appellants as discussed above, instead only
Rs. 5000/- is awarded towards loss of spousal consortium, Rs. 5000/-
each to the other claimants under the head of loss of love and
affection, Rs. 5000/- each towards the funeral expenses and loss of
estate which is not to the tune of the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and Nanu Ram
(Supra).
13. For the foregoing reasons, I find it appropriate to re-compute the
amount of compensation. Accordingly, the monthly income of the
deceased is taken as Rs. 6000/- and since at the time of death, the
deceased was 24 years old, therefore, in view of decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the income of
deceased is required to be enhanced by 40% towards future prospects,
which comes to Rs.8400/- (6000+2400). Thus annual income of the
deceased for the purpose of calculating the compensation comes to
Rs.1,00,800/- (8400 x 12). Out of this amount, one-fifth is to be
deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and
after deducting one-fifth annual loss of income of deceased would
come to Rs.80,640/- (1,00,800 – 20,160). By applying multiplier of 18,
as applied by the Claims Tribunal, to annual income, the total loss of
dependency would come to Rs.14,51,520/- (80,640 x 18). Besides this,
Appellant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
spousal consortium and Appellant No. 2 for a sum of Rs.40,000/-
towards loss of parental consortium and Appellants No. 3 & 4 are
entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium.
Now, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.16,41,520/-
(14,51,520 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000).
8
As in the preceding paragraphs, this Court has upheld the finding
recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the deceased was also
contributory negligent to the extent of 50% and therefore, after
deducting 50% of the total compensation, the claimants are entitled for
the total sum of Rs. 8,20,760/- (16,41,520 X 50%). This amount of
compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of
claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in
the impugned award shall remain intact.
14. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants as compensation
shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated
above.
15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award
stands modified to the extent indicated above.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- ——–/–/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Dey