Chattisgarh High Court
Suresh Kumar vs Dayanand Sahu on 18 June, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2025:CGHC:25188
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1092 of 2019
1 - Suresh Kumar S/o Late Shri Jhumuk Ram Vaidya Aged About 64 Years
2 - Dhiraj Kumar Vaidya S/o Shri Suresh Kumar Vaidya Aged About 41 Years
3 - Niraj Kumar Vaidya S/o Shri Suresh Kumar Vaidya Aged About 38 Years
All are R/o Jyoti Vidyalaya Ke Pass, G.E Road B. M. Y. Charoda, Tahsil
Patan District Durg Chhattisgarh.
--- Appellants
versus
1 - Dayanand Sahu S/o Avadhram Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Urla,
Thana Bhilai -Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh (Wahan Kramank C.
G. 04 H. 6818 Ka Chalak)
2 - Chhabiram S/o Gariba Ram R/o Mahavir Chowk Urla, B M Y Charoda,
Tahsil Patan District Durg Chhattisarh ( Wahan Kramank C.G. 04 H 6818 Ka
Malik )
3 - Prabandhak New India Insurance Company Limited, Charoda Micro
Karyalaya, Bharat Petrol Pump Ke Samne G.E. Road Padumnagar,
Charoda/ Bhilai Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
For Appellants : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Patel, Advocate
Digitally
BALRAM signed by
PRASAD BALRAM
DEWANGAN PRASAD
DEWANGAN
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate
2
Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order On Board
18/06/2025
1. Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking
enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned First Additional
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District – Durg (for short ‘the
Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 28.01.2019 passed in Claim Case
No.99/2016 thereby allowing application in part and awarding
Rs.3,49,972/- as compensation in a death case.
2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants
filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming total
compensation of Rs.54,50,000/- under different heads on account of
the death of Smt. Gouri Vaidya, who died in the road accident pleading
therein that on 13.03.2016 at about 8.00 PM, Smt. Pushpa Ramteke
along with sister-in-law Gouri Vaidya and Jaya Mishrekar was
travelling in the car driven by Pravin. Whey they reached near in front
of Ford Show Room, near G.E. Road, BMY Charoda, respondent No.1
by driving the vehicle Tata Specio Gold No.6818 in a rash and
negligent manner dashed the car from rear side and caused accident,
due to which occupants of car sustained severe injuries and they were
taken to hospital. During course of treatment Smt. Pushpa Ramteke
and Smt. Gouri Vaidya died. It was pleaded that deceased Gouri
Vaidya was healthy woman of 56 years and was running small scale
industry and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. It was further pleaded
that due to her untimely death, the appellants/claimants suffered
irreparable loss.
3
3. The non-applicant No.3 filed its reply to the claim application and
resisted the claim of the claimants. The insurance of the offending
vehicle was denied at the time accident. It was pleaded that the claim
application was filed exaggerating the amount of compensation. The
accident occurred due to the negligence of both the drivers. On the
date of accident, the non-applicant No.1 was not having valid and
effective driving license, and hence there was breach of conditions of
insurance policy.
4. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and
the evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the
claim application in part and awarded total compensation of
Rs.3,49,972/-.
5. Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal
erred in awarding meager amount of compensation. It is contended
that the income of the deceased as assessed by the learned Claims
Tribunal is on lower side. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded
only Rs.70,000/- towards loss of love and affection and funeral
expenses and has not awarded any amount towards loss of
consortium and loss of estate. The learned Claims Tribunal has not
awarded proper compensation on other conventional head.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 -Insurance Company opposes
the submission of learned counsel for appellants and submits that the
amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in
the facts of the case is just and proper, which does not call for any
interference.
4
7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the
documents placed on record.
8. It is not in dispute that the accident is of 13.03.2016. Learned Claims
Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per
month only on notional basis. True it is that claimant could not able to
prove the nature of employment as also the income of the deceased
by producing clinching evidence. However, in the facts of the case, the
learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken the factors like rise in
price index, place of resident, date of accident and the wages
prevailing at the place where deceased was resident of. The learned
Claims Tribunal could have also taken note of minium wages fixed by
the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act for the purpose
of calculating the amount of compensation. As per the notification
issued by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act,
1948, monthly income of the labourer prevailing from 01.10.2015 till
31.03.2016 for unskilled labour has been fixed as Rs.5,860/-,
therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the monthly income of the
deceased can be assessed as Rs.5,860/-. It is ordered accordingly.
9. As on the date of accident, deceased was in between 60 to 65 years
of age, therefore, there shall be no addition towards the future
prospects. Learned Claims Tribunal has also rightly applied the
deduction of 1/3 towards personal living expenses and further applied
the multiplier of 7, which is in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.
5
10. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded consolidated sum
Rs.70,000/- towards love and affection and funeral expenses. As
there is no head for award of compensation towards loss of love and
affection, however, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the
claimants are to be awarded compensation under the head of loss of
consortium. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General
Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram &
Ors. reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 has explained the types of
consortium and held that there are three types of loss of consortium
i.e. loss of spousal consortium for widow/widower, loss of parental
consortium to the children and loss of filial consortium to parents. The
appellant No.1 is husband, appellant No.2 and 3 are children of the
deceased therefore, all the appellants/claimants are entitled for
Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium. It is ordered accordingly.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company
Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has
further held that in death case, the claimants are entitled for the award
of sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of estate, therefore, the appellants are also entitled for
the same. It is ordered accordingly.
11. On the basis of above, the compensation calculated by the Tribunal is
recomputed as under :-
SN Head Amount (in Rs.).
1. Annual income : 70,320.00
(Rs.5,860 x 12)
3. 1/3 deduction towards personal expenses : 46,880.00
(70,320 - 23,440) =
6
4. Loss of dependency after application of : 3,28,160.00
multiplier of 7 (46,880x 7)
5. For funeral expenses :
15,000.00
6. For loss of estate :
15,000.00
7. For loss of consortium to appellants : 1,20,000.00
Rs.40,000/- each (Rs.40,000 x 3)
Total compensation : 4,78,160.00
12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be
entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,78,160.00. Any amount already
paid to the appellants as compensation pursuant to the impugned
award, shall be adjusted. Amount of compensation shall carry interest
@ 8% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization.
Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain
intact.
13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned
stands modified to the extent indicated above.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Balram