Chattisgarh High Court
Marua Manjhi vs Dasrath Yadav @ Babi on 4 April, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
Page No.1
2025:CGHC:16097
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 713 of 2020
1 - Marua Manjhi W/o Lt. Judhister Manjhi, Aged About 24 Years
Permanent R/o Village Dhamanpur, P.S. Golgudi, District Kalahandi
(Udisha)...............Applicant, District:Kalahandi,Orissa
2 - Rakesh Manjhi S/o Lt. Judhister Manjhi, Aged About 3 Years Minor
Through Natural Guardian And Mother Marua Manjhi Aged About 24
Years, W/o Lt. Judhister Manjhi The Appellant No. 1. Permanent R/o
Village Dhamanpur, P.S. Golgudi, District Kalahandi
(Udisha)...............Applicant, District : Kalahandi, Orissa
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - Dasrath Yadav @ Babi S/o Kishore Yadav, R/o Pankaj Badi
Sejbahar, P.S. Mujgahan, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). (Driver Of
Motorcycle No. C.G.-07- B C-4899)................Non Applicant, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Ishwar Lal Sagar S/o Shobharam Sagar, R/o Village Peeparchedi,
P.S. Pulgaon, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Motorcycle No.
C.G.-07- B C-4899)................Non Applicant, District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh
3 - The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through Divisional Manager
(Division No. 3), The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. R.D.A. Building In
Front Of Raipur Tahsil Office, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
(Insurer Of Motor Cycle No. C.G.-07 B C- 4899)...................Non-
Applicant, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
_________________________________________________________
For Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 : None.
For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Prasanjeet Dutta, Advocate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page No.2
Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Judgment On Board
04/04/2025
1. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submits that insurance
company has been exonerated from satisfying the award on the
ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having the
valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident.
2. The appeal is admitted for hearing.
3. With the consent of the parties, the case is heard finally.
4. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal challenging the award
dated 24.06.2018 passed by the learned 2 nd Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District- Raipur (for short ‘the
Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.493/2018 whereby the Claims
Tribunal allowed claim application of claimants in part and
awarded compensation of Rs.9,10,000/- to claimants/appellants
herein along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of
claim application, in a fatal accident case.
5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 24.06.2018, Judhister
Manjhi (since deceased) was travelling as pillion rider on
motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G. 07 BC 4899, driven by
respondent No.1. When they reached near Dhaneli Nala, due to
rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, motorcycle cycle
fallen down in ditch as a result deceased Judhister Manjhi also
Page No.3
fallen down, suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries
on spot. Accident was reported to concerned police station
based on which Crime No.94/2018 for commission of alleged
offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304A of the Indian
Penal Code was registered against respondent No.1-Driver.
6. Claimants/ appellants herein, who are wife and son of deceased,
filed an application claiming compensation of Rs.20,70,000/-
under various heads on the ground that on the date of accident,
deceased was working as Mason, earning Rs.9,000/- per month
and they were dependent on earning of deceased.
7. Non-applicant No.1/respondent No.1 herein did not appear
before the Claims Tribunal and therefore, he was proceeded
exparte.
8. Non-applicant No.2 submitted reply to claim application and
denied the factum of accident with offending vehicle. It was
pleaded that on the date of accident, his vehicle was duly insured
with non-applicant No.3, therefore, the amount of compensation
awarded, if any, will be paid by non-applicant No.3 Insurance
Company.
9. Non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company filed its separate reply
and denied averments made in claim application except that on
the date of accident, offending motorcycle was insured with it and
denied other facts of application, it was further pleaded that on
the date of accident, non-applicant no. 1 did not have a valid and
effective driving license, despite knowing the fact non-applicant
Page No.4
No. 2 got the motorcycle driven by non-applicant no. 1, therefore,
the offence under Section 3/181 and 5/181 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 has been registered by the concerned police station.
According to section 134 (C) & 158 (6) of the Act, 1988 non-
applicant no. 3 insurance company is not liable for compensation
as the vehicle owner did not inform the insurance company about
the said accident. Therefore the insurance company has no
liability to pay the amount of compensation.
10. 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 accident was
the result of rash and negligent driving of non-applicant
No.1/respondent No.1 herein; disbelieved the employment of
deceased and income therefrom on the ground that the claimants
have not examined any person whose house or shop has been
constructed by deceased to prove that deceased was working as
Mason and earning Rs.9,000/- per month and consequently
assessed monthly income of deceased at Rs.6,000/- on notional
basis treating him to be an unskilled labourer. Accordingly, the
Claims Tribunal partly allowed application and awarded
compensation Rs.9,10,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a.,
fastened liability to satisfy the award upon respondent No.1 & 2,
driver and owner of offending vehicle, jointly and severally.
11.Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submits that the
claimants in their evidence have specifically stated that on the
Page No.5
date of accident, deceased was working as Mason and earning
Rs.300/- per day. However, the Claims Tribunal had not assessed
income of deceased accordingly. The Claims Tribunal has
awarded less amount towards future prospects and even the
amount awarded under other conventional heads are also on
lower side. The claimants would also be entitled to compensation
towards loss of spousal consortium and parental consortium i.e.
Rs.40,000/- to each of the claimants being the wife and children
of the deceased and the interest awarded by the Claims Tribunal
is also on the lower side and prayed for enhancement of the
amount of compensation.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent have
supported the impugned award. They submitted that the
claimants failed to bring on record any documentary evidence or
admissible evidence establishing income of deceased as pleaded
and stated by them. In absence thereof, the Claims Tribunal is
justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. They
further submit that amount of compensation awarded by the
Claims Tribunal in the given facts and circumstances of case is
just and proper and it does not call for any interference.
13. At this stage, learned counsel for appellants submitted that even
if they failed to prove the nature of employment of deceased, his
engagement has to be considered as labourer and income is to
be assessed on the minimum wages fixed by the Competent
Authority.
Page No.6
14. Learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of evidence brought on
record by respective parties held that witness NAW-1 had placed
on record final report submitted by police after completion of
investigation as Ex.D-2 alleging offences under Section 3/181
and 5/181 of the Act of 1988. Non-applicant No.1 was proceeded
ex-parte and non-applicant No.2 failed to produce and prove
driving license of non-applicant No.2 and recorded a finding that
non-applicant No.1/respondent No.1 herein was not possessing
valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle,
there was breach of policy conditions and thus exonerated
respondent No.3-Insurance Company from the liability to satisfy
the award. Computed and awarded compensation of
Rs.9,10,000/- to claimants/appellants, fastened liability upon
respondent No.1 & 2, driver and owner of offending vehicle.
15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
16. The pleading and evidence of the appellant that the deceased on
the date of accident was doing the work of Mason and earning
Rs.9,000/- per month was not found to be proved by the learned
Claims Tribunal as the appellants failed to place on record
clinching and admissible piece of evidence in this regard. Except
oral evidence of appellant No.1, no other independent witness has
been examined to prove that the deceased was working as
Mason. In absence of admissible piece of evidence, finding
recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal disbelieving the
occupation and income of the deceased cannot be said to be
Page No.7
erroneous. Learned Claims Tribunal has rightly considered the
deceased to be working as Labourer and accordingly assessed
income of deceased as Rs.6000/- per month for the purpose of
calculating the amount of compensation. However, in absence of
proof of income or occupation, the work/engagement of deceased
is to be taken as Labourer and income is to be assessed
considering the price index, wage structure prevailing on the date
of accident where the deceased was working or the Claims
Tribunal or the Courts can resort to wage rate as notified by the
competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
17. Considering that the appellant was working as laborer and also
considering the notification issued by the competent authority
under the Minimum Wages Act for the period during which
accident was occurred, I find it appropriate to accept the income
of deceased as Rs.8,320/- (of unskilled labourer). It is ordered
accordingly.
18. There is no dispute with reference to addition towards future
prospects, deduction towards personal expenses of deceased and
multiplier applied by the Claims Tribunal. However, perusal of the
impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal has
awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.70,000/- under other
conventional heads, which in the opinion of this Court is not
correct.
19. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.70,000/- under other
heads, which in the opinion of this Court appears to be on lower
Page No.8
side. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. reported in (2018) 18 SCC
130, whosoever are dependents of deceased who died in a road
accident, are entitled to ‘parental’, ‘spousal’ or ‘filial’ consortium, as
required. Spousal consortium is awarded to widow for loss of
company and aid of other in every conjugal relation. Parental
consortium is granted to the child upon premature death of a
parent, for loss of parental aid, protection, affection, society,
discipline, guidance and training. Filial consortium is the right of
the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of
a child. Relationship of claimants-appellants with the deceased is
not in dispute. Therefore, the appellant No.1 being widow of
deceased is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- for spousal
consortium; appellant No.2 being son of deceased is entitled for a
sum of Rs.40,000/- for parental consortium. It is ordered
accordingly.
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.8,320/- per
month and since at the time of accident the deceased was 45
years old, therefore, in view of the law laid down in the matter of
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680, the income of deceased is required to be
Page No.9
enhanced by 25% towards future prospects and thus monthly
income of deceased comes to Rs.10,400/-(8320+2028). Annual
income of deceased for the purpose of calculating compensation
comes to Rs.1,24,800/-(10400×12). Out of this amount, one third
is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of
deceased, as done by Claims Tribunal, and after deducting 1/3 rd,
annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.83,200/- (124800-
41600). By applying multiplier of 14, as rightly applied by Claims
Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency, total loss of dependency
would come to Rs.11,64,800/- (83200×14). Besides this,
appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards
spousal consortium and parental consortium being wife and son
of the deceased respectively, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the matters of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram reported in
(2018) 8 SCC 130. 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.12,74,800/- (1164800 + 40,000 +
40000 + 15,000 +15000) recoverable from respondent Nos.1 & 2.
This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% 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.
Page No.10
22.Any amount already paid to claimants/ appellants as
compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of
compensation as calculated above.
23.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned
SYED
ROSHAN award stands modified to the extent indicated above.
ZAMIR ALI
Digitally
signed by Sd/-
SYED ROSHAN (Parth Prateem Sahu)
ZAMIR ALI
Judge
Nisha
[ad_1]
Source link