Chattisgarh High Court
Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance … vs Sudamaram Sahu on 25 April, 2025
-1-
2025:CGHC:18859
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 925 of 2020
1 - Sudamaram Sahu S/o Manrakhan Lal Sahu, Aged About 40 Years
2 - Smt. Keshari Bai Sahu, W/o Sudamaram Sahu, Aged About 38 Years
3 - Ku. Neha Sahu, D/o Sudamaram Sahu, Aged About 14 Years
Appellant No.3 is Minor Through Legal Guardian Father Sudamaram Sahu
All R/o Village Bhanpuri, Post Tarsivan, Tahsil And District Dhamtari
Chhattisgarh ................ Claimant
---Appellant(s)
versus
1 - Jai Prakash Meshram S/o Nandkumar Meshram, R/o Village Bhanpuri
Post Tarsivan Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
.................Driver
2 - Nilmani Sinha S/o Ghanshyam Sinha, R/o Village Arjuni, Tahsil And
District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh
..................Owner
3 - Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, M.B. Trade
Center, Makai Chowk- Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
..................Insurer
--- Respondent(s)
__________________________________________________________
For Appellant (s) : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate
For Resp. No.1 & 2 : Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate
For Resp. No.3 : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate
____________________________________________________________
-2-
MAC No. 835 of 2020
1 – Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited M. B. Trade
Center, Makai Chowk, Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh
—Appellant (s)
Versus
1 – Sudamaram Sahu S/o Manrakhanlal Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o
Village Bhanpuri, Post Tarsiwa, Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh
…………Respondent No. 01, (Applicant No. 1)
2 – Smt. Kesharibai Sahu W/o Sudamaram Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o
Village Bhanpuri, Post Tarsiwa, Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh
…………Respondent No. 02, (Applicant No. 2)
3 – Kumari Neha Sahu D/o Sudamaram Sahu Aged About 14 Years Minor
Represented Through Her Father, Sudamaram Sahu S/o Manrakhanlal
Sahu, R/o Village Bhanpuri, Post Tarsiwa, Tehsil And District Dhamtari
Chhattisgarh.
………..Respondent No. 03, (Applicant No. 3)
4 – Jaiprakash Meshram S/o Nandkumar Meshram R/o Village Bhanpuri,
Post Tarsiwa, Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
………..Respondent No. 04, (Respondent No. 1),
5 – Neelmani Sinha S/o Ghanshyam Sinha R/o Village Arjuni, Tehsil And
District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh
…………Respondent No. 05, (Respondent No. 2),
— Respondent(s)
__________________________________________________________
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate
For Resp. No.1 to 3 : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate
For Resp. No.4 & 5 : Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate
_______________________________________________________
S.B.: Hon’ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Judgment On Board
25/04/2025
1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties,
the case is heard finally.
2. MAC No.925 of 2020 filed by applicants/claimants and MAC
SHUBHAM
DEY No.835 of 2020 filed by non-applicant/Insurance Company are
Digitally signed
by SHUBHAM
DEY
-3-
being decided by this common order as both the appeals arise
out of same award dated 31.01.2020 passed in Claim Case
No.167 of 2018 by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Dhamtari (CG).
3. Facts relevant for disposal of these two appeals are that on
20/09/2018, Lalit Kumar Sahu was going from Dhamtari to
Farasgaon in a Bolero pick-up vehicle number- CG 07/BC/6513
loaded with wood logs along with non-applicant No.1. On the
way at around 11.30 am near village Chitod turn, non-applicant
No.1- Jaiprakash while driving the said pick-up rashly and
negligently, lost his control over the vehicle and in the result
vehicle overturned and met with an accident. In the accident
Lalit Kumar Sahu suffered grievous injuries on his head, both
hands and shoulder. He was taken to district hospital Dhamtari
from where he was referred to Raipur, Lalit Kumar Sahu died
while being taken to Raipur.
4. After death of deceased Lalit Kumar Sahu in the said accident
caused by non-applicant No.1 i.e. driver of the offending
vehicle by driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, the
applicants being parents and sister of the deceased filed a
claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act
1988 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1988”) seeking
compensation of Rs.16,61,000/- under different heads jointly
and severally from the non-applicants. It is stated in the
application that at the time of the accident, the deceased was a
healthy and abled body 18-year-old youth, was earning Rs.
-4-
250/- per day by working as an agricultural labourer and
maintaining the applicants.
5. Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 in their written statement have denied
all the pleadings made in the claim application and it has been
specifically stated that non-applicant No.1 is a skilled driver. On
the date of alleged incident, non-applicant No.1 was driving the
vehicle at a slow speed. Due to mechanical fault, rear wheel
axle of pick-up vehicle broke, and non-applicant No.1 slowly
brought the vehicle to the side of the road, but due to panic,
Lalit Kumar Sahu jumped down from the vehicle, due to which
he got injured which caused his death and there was no
negligence on the part of non-applicant No.1. It is also stated
that on the date of accident non-applicant No.1 had a valid and
effective driving license and the vehicle was insured with non-
applicant No. 3/ insurance company, hence, non-applicant No.
3/insurance company is liable to pay amount of compensation,
if any.
6. Non-applicant No.3/insurance company in its written statement
has also specifically denied all the pleadings made in the claim
application and stated that the accident was reported with a
delay of 25 days, which clearly shows that the accident did not
occur with the vehicle insured by non-applicant No.3, but with
some other vehicle. It is also stated that on the date of the
accident, deceased and other persons were travelling in the
vehicle illegally. It is also stated that at the time of accident, non-
applicant No.1 had a learner’s license to drive LMV and the said
-5-
vehicle was being used against the terms of the insurance
policy at the time of the accident, hence non-applicant
No.3/insurance company is not liable for compensation.
7. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and
evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on
the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-
applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident
occurred in which Lalit Kumar Sahu suffered grievous injury and
died. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the
insurance policy was not found proved, held Non-applicant No.
3 insurance company liable to pay the amount of compensation
and computed the loss suffered by the claimant under different
heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.7,10,400/ -.
MAC 925 of 2020
8. Mr. A.L. Singroul, learned counsel for the appellants/applicants
appearing in this appeal submits that appellants/claimants have
raised primarily two grounds seeking enhancement of amount
of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. He
contended that date of accident is 20.09.2018, age of the
deceased was 17 years as held by Claims Tribunal, however,
learned Tribunal overlooking the date of accident and age of
deceased has assessed the income of deceased as Rs.4,500/-
per month only instead Rs. 7,500/- which in the facts of the
case is on lower side. He next contended that learned Tribunal
erred in not awarding amount towards loss of consortium to all
the claimants but have awarded amount of compensation
-6-
towards funeral expenses and loss of estate and therefore
amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal be
suitably enhanced.
9. Mr. Kunal Das, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.
1 & 2 and Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.3 in this case vehemently oppose
the submission of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants
and would submit that amount of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and proper in the facts of the case which does
not call for any interference .
MAC No.835 of 2020
10. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshumukh, learned counsel appearing for
appellant/Insurance company would submit that this appeal is
filed by the insurance company challenging the liability
fastened upon insurance company of paying amount of
compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. He contended that
learned Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that there was
breach of conditions of insurance policy, hence, liability to
satisfy the award could not be fastened upon it. Non-applicant
No.1 Jaiprakash Meshram before learned Tribunal, has
produced copy of licence which is a Learner’s Licence and as
per condition of insurance policy, the person possessing
Learner’s Licence can drive the light goods vehicle
also,however, he can only drive empty light goods vehicle and
not the vehicle loaded with goods. There is specific condition in
-7-
this regard in the insurance policy filed before the Tribunal as
Ex.D-4.
11. Mr. A.L. Singroul, learned counsel appearing for respondents
No. 1 to 3, however, opposes the submission of learned counsel
for the appellant and would submit that as per Rule 3 of the
Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as
“Rules of 1989”), person possessing Learner’s Licence is
authorized to drive the vehicle as mentioned in Learner’s
Licence subject to compliance of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1989
i.e. driver holding the regular licence should accompany and sit
on the side of driver possessing the Learner’s Licence at the
time of running of vehicle .
12. Mr. Kunal Das, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.
4 & 5 submit that respondent No.4 Jaiprakash was possessing
Learner’s Licence to drive light motor vehicle. Category of
vehicle which is involved in the accident is light goods vehicle
and as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
Mukund Dewangan vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017) 14
SCC 663, the person holding the licence of light Motor vehicle is
also authorized to drive the light goods vehicle. He next
contended that undisputedly along with respondent No.4
Jaiprakash Meshram i.e. driver possessing the Learner’s
Licence, Ghanshyam Das Manikupuri, person holding regular
driving licence to drive said vehicle was also sitting and
therefore there is compliance of provision under Rule 3 of the
Rules of 1989. He next contended that accident is not occurred
-8-
on account of negligence on the part of respondent No.4 but
due to mechanical fault occurred in the vehicle as axle of the
vehicle broke down which led overturning of vehicle and
therefore there is no error in the finding recorded by learned
Tribunal that there is no violation of condition of insurance
policy.
13. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned
counsel for the respective parties in both the appeals and also
perused the record of the claim case.
14. So far as appeal filed by Insurance Company i.e. MAC No.835
of 2020 and ground raised therein is concerned, main
contention of learned counsel for the appellant/ insurance
company is that learned Tribunal erred in taking note of
condition of insurance policy Ex.D-4 wherein under “Driver
Clause”, it is specifically mentioned that person holding an
effective Learner’s Licence can also drive the vehicle when not
used for the transport of goods. Said clause of insurance policy
is relevant and extracted below for ready reference :
“Driver: Any person including insured: Provided that
a person driving holds an effective driving licence
at the time of the accident and is not disqualified
from holding or obtaining such a licence. Provided
also that the person holding an effective Learner’s
Licence may also drive the vehicle when not used
for the transport of goods at the time of the
accident and that such a person satisfies the
requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989.”
-9-
15. Perusal of evidence of Ghanshyam Das Manikpuri (NAW-4) and
Jaiprakash Meshram (NAW-5) who were stated to be
occupants of ill-fatted vehicle when it met with an accident it is
appearing that vehicle was being driven by Jaiprakash
(respondent No.4 in the appeal filed by insurance company)
and Ghanshyam Das Manikpuri who was possessing valid and
effective driving licence to drive the pick-up vehicle was sitting
next to Jaiprakash who was driving the vehicle.
16. It is not in dispute that vehicle involved in the accident is light
goods vehicle. As per the description of vehicle mentioned in
Ex.D-3 i.e. details of registration of vehicle, Class of the vehicle
is mentioned as LGV – Light Goods Vehicle, Type of Body- Pick
up, Gross Vehicle Weight -2960 k.g., Unladen Weight of
Vehicle – 1250 kg, which is less than 7500 k.g. Condition of
Insurance Policy as extracted above would clearly shows that
though the person holding Learner’s Licence is authorized to
drive the vehicle, however, he is authorized to drive only the
empty goods vehicle as per the driver clause. Any condition of
insurance policy is to be made in consonance with the provision
of the law. It cannot be in contravention to the provisions under
the Act of 1988 or Rules of 1989.
17. Issuance of licence is provided under Section 10 of the Act of
1988 which is reproduced as under for ready reference:
“10. Form and contents of licences to drive.–
(1) Every learner’s licence and driving licence,
-10-except a driving licence issued under section 18,
shall be in such form and shall contain such
information as may be prescribed by the Central
Government.
(2) A learner’s licence or, as the case may be, driving
licence shall also be expressed as entitling the
holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the
following classes, namely:–
(a) motor cycle without gear;
(b) motor cycle with gear;
(c) [adapted vehicle];
(d) light motor vehicle;
[(e) transport vehicle;]
(i) road-roller;
(j) motor vehicle of a specified description.”
18. Perusal of Section 10 (2) of the Act of 1988 would provide that a
Learner’s Licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall
also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor
vehicle of one or more of the classes, description of which is
mentioned therein which also includes ‘transport vehicle’. Under
transport vehicle, all categories of transport vehicles are
included. Chapter- II of the Rules of 1989 deals with licensing of
drivers of motor vehicles. Clause (a) of Rule 3 deals with
effective Learner’s Licence issued to him in Form -3 to drive the
vehicle. Under Rule 3 of the Rules of 1989, there is no
restriction on the driver holding a Learner’s Licence to drive the
loaded transport vehicle but some conditions are mentioned
therein as to when the person holding driving licence can drive
the vehicle.
19. Rule 3 of the Rules of 1989 which is relevant in the facts of the
-11-
case is extracted below for ready reference :
“3. General – The provisions of sub-section
(1) of section 3 shall not apply to a person
while receiving instructions or gaining
experience in driving with the object of
presenting himself for a test of competence
to drive, so long as-
(a) such person is the holder of an effective
learner’s license issued to him in Form 3 to
drive the vehicle;
(b) such person is accompanied by an
instructor holding an effective driving license
to drive the vehicle and such instructor is
sitting in such a position to control or stop the
vehicle; and
(c) there is painted, in the front and the rear
of the vehicle or on a plate or card affixed to
the front and the rear, the letter “L” in red on
a white background as under:
L
Note.- The painting on the vehicle or on
the plate or card shall not be less than 18
centimetres square and the letter “L” shall not
be less than 10 centimetres high, 2
centimetres thick and 9 centimetres wide at
the bottom:
Provided that a person,while receiving
instructions or gaining experience in driving a
motorcycle (with or without a side-car
attached), shall not carry any other person on
the motorcycle except for the purpose and in
the manner referred to in clause (b).”
20. Perusal of Ex.D-1 would show that it is particulars of licence
wherein class of vehicle is mentioned as MCWG i.e. Motorcycle
-12-
with Gear and LMV i.e. Light Motor Vehicle (non-transport).
Admittedly, on the date of accident, vehicle involved is a light
goods vehicle. The issue whether the person holding the
licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle is also
authorized to drive light goods vehicle came up for
consideration before Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Mukund Dewangan (supra) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed as under:
“60.2. A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross
vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed
7500 kg would be a light motor vehicle and also
motor car or tractor or a roadroller, “unladen weight”
of which does not exceed 7500 kg and holder of a
driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle”
as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive
a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle
weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg or a motor
car or tractor or roadroller, the “unladen weight” of
which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no
separate endorsement on the licence is required to
drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class
as enumerated above. A licence issued under
Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after
Amendment Act 54 of 1994 and 28-3-2001 in the
form.”
21. Recently, in case Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company
Limited vs. Rambha Devi & Ors. (2025) 3 SCC 95, Hon’ble
Supreme Court has further observed that person holding
licence to drive the light motor vehicle is also authorized to drive
the goods vehicle coming within the weight of light vehicle.
-13-
Relevant paragraph in the case of Rambha Devi (supra) is
extracted below for ready reference:
“181. Our conclusions following the above
discussion are as under:
181.1. A driver holding a licence for light
motor vehicle (LMV) class, under Section
10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle
weight under 7500 kg, is permitted to
operate a “transport vehicle” without
needing additional authorisation under
Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically
for the “transport vehicle” class. For
licensing purposes, LMVs and transport
vehicles are not entirely separate classes.
An overlap exists between the two. The
special eligibility requirements will however
continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-
rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous
goods.
181.2. The second part of Section 3(1),
which emphasises the necessity of a
specific requirement to drive a “transport
vehicle”, does not supersede the definition
of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV
Act.
181.3. The additional eligibility criteria
specified in the MV Act and the MV Rules
generally for driving “transport vehicles”
would apply only to those intending to
operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight
exceeding 7500 kg i.e. “medium goods
vehicle”, “medium passenger vehicle”,
“heavy goods vehicle” and “heavy
-14-passenger vehicle”.
181.4. The decision in Mukund
Dewangan (2017) [Mukund Dewangan v.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC
663] is upheld but for reasons as explained
by us in this judgment. In the absence of
any obtrusive omission, the decision is not
per incuriam, even if certain provisions of
the MV Act and the MV Rules were not
considered in the said judgment.
182. The reference is answered in the
above terms. The Registry is directed to list
the matters before the appropriate Bench
after obtaining directions from Hon’ble the
Chief Justice of India.”
22. Neither the provision of Section 10 of the Act of 1988 nor Rule 3
of the Rules of 1989 imposes a bar that the person holding
Learner’s Licence is restrained from driving the loaded goods
vehicle.
23. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 297 has dealt
with the issue of Learner’s Licence and it is held that when a
vehicle is being driven by a learner subject to the conditions
mentioned in the licence, he would not be a person who is not
“duly licensed” resulting in conferring a right on the insurer to
avoid the claim of the third party. Relevant paragraph in the
case of Swaran Singh (supra) is extracted below for ready
reference :
“93. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for
-15-grant of learner’s licence. [See Section 4(3), Section
7(2), Section 10(3) and Section 14.] A learner’s
licence is, thus, also a licence within the meaning of
the provisions of the said Act. It cannot, therefore,
be said that when a vehicle is being driven by a
learner subject to the conditions mentioned in the
licence, he would not be a person who is not “duly
licensed” resulting in conferring a right on the
insurer to avoid the claim of the third party. It cannot
be said that a person holding a learner’s licence is
not entitled to drive the vehicle. Even if there exists
a condition in the contract of insurance that the
vehicle cannot be driven by a person holding a
learner’s licence, the same would run counter to the
provisions of Section 149(2) of the said Act.
x x x
x x x
110. The summary of our findings to the various
issues as raised in these petitions is as follows:
x x x
x x x
(viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven
by a person having a learner’s licence, the
insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the
decree.”
24. Perusal of the clause mentioned in the insurance policy would
show that it bears exclusion clause wherein it is mentioned that
Driver holding Learner’s Licence is not permissible to drive the
light goods vehicle, loaded with goods, whereas provision under
Section 10 (2) of the Act of 1988 or Rules 3 of Rules of 1989
does not create any bar of such nature as mentioned in
-16-
insurance policy. Conditions of insurance policy should be in
consonance with the provision under the Act of 1988 and Rules
framed thereunder i.e. Rules of 1989. Conditions of the
Insurance Policy cannot go contrary to provision of law.
25. Insurance Company could escape from liability under the
insurance policy to satisfy the award only when there is
fundamental breach of conditions of insurance policy in
conformity with the provision of law i.e. Act of 1988 or Rules of
1989.
26. Section 10 (2) of the Act of 1988 provides that a person holding
Learner’s Licence can also drive categories of vehicle as
mentioned therein. Rule 3 of the Rules of 1989 prescribes that
person holding Learner’s Licence can drive the vehicle for
which licence is issued subject to another person sitting on the
side holding regular license to drive said category of vehicle.
27. In the case at hand, as per evidence available on record, driver
who was driving ill-fated vehicle on the date of accident was
possessing Learner’s Licence to drive light motor vehicle. As
per evidence available on record by the side of driver of vehicle
one another person holding effective regular licence to drive the
light motor vehicle was sitting. Hence there is compliance of
Rule 3 of the Rules of 1989 .
28. In case of National Insurance Co. Vs. Dundamma (AIR 1992
Kar. 3), Full Bench of High Court of Karnataka while considering
the conditions of insurance policy to be consistent with the law
or inconsistent with the law, has observed thus:
-17-
“23………………..Subject otherwise to the terms
exception conditions and limitation of this policy.”
The contents of the tariff and the conditions
incorporated in the policy extracted above clearly
indicate that the insurance company covers risk in
respect of every goods vehicle with the clear
understanding that the risk in respect of passengers
in a goods vehicle is not covered under the policy. If
the conditions incorporated in the policy are
inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, certainly
the latter prevails, but if the conditions are in
conformity with the provisions of the Act they must
prevail. For instance, if in an Insurance Policy issued
in respect of a stage carriage or a contract carriage, a
condition is incorporated in the policy to the effect that
it would not be liable to pay compensation in respect
of death or bodily injury to passengers such a
condition would be a nullity and the Legislature has
also incorporated an express provision to that effect
in Section 66 of the Act. But the condition
incorporated in the policy in respect of a goods
vehicle to the effect that the Insurance Company is
not liable to pay any compensation in respect of
passengers carried in a vehicle other than the driver
and the employees covered by Section 95 of the Act,
is strictly in conformity with the provisions of the Act
and is binding on all concerned.”
29. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the decisions
mentioned above, exclusion clause will not apply to the fact of
the case as it is contrary to provision of Section 10 (2) of the
Act, 1988 and Rule 3 of the Rules of 1989.
30. For the foregoing discussions, I am of the view that on the date
of accident though the driver of the vehicle was possessing
Learner’s Licence to drive light motor vehicle, however, he
fulfilled compliance of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1989 and,
therefore, it cannot be said that learned Claims Tribunal in any
manner erred in fastening the liability to satisfy the amount of
-18-
compensation upon Insurance Company.
31. Accordingly, submission of learned counsel for Insurance
Company is repelled, MAC No.835 of 2020 filed by
appellant/Insurance Company being sans merit is liable to be
dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
32. So far as the ground raised in MAC No.925 of 2020 filed by
Claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation is
concerned, appellants/claimant have raised two grounds
seeking enhancement of compensation. First ground is that
Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on
lower side i.e. Rs.4,500/- and secondly amount of
compensation has not been awarded to all the Claimants under
the head ‘loss of consortium’.
33. So far as the first ground raised by learned counsel for the
claimants is concerned, admittedly, date of accident is
20.09.2018, age of deceased was 17 years on the date of
accident. Learned Tribunal has held occupation of deceased to
be of agricultural labourer, but, in absence of documentary proof
of income of deceased, has assessed income on notional basis
as Rs.4,500/-. In the facts of case and nature of occupation as
pleaded and stated by claimant, it cannot be expected from a
labourer to maintain documentary record of his income in the
form of wage which he received as daily wager. Even if the
claimant failed to prove the nature of occupation and income of
deceased, learned Tribunal considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, age of the deceased, has to assess
-19-
occupation to be a labourer and to assess the income
considering the price index, cost of living, wage structure
prevailing within the area the deceased was residing etc. and
may also take note of minimum wages fixed by the
Commissioner and Competent Authority under the Minimum
Wages Act, 1948. Learned Claims Tribunal has not assigned
any reason for assessing the income of deceased as Rs.4,500/-
per month.
34. In the aforementioned facts of the case, in the considered
opinion of this Court, learned Tribunal erred in assessing
income of deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month on notional basis
only on guess work, hence, said finding is not sustainable and it
is accordingly set aside.
35. For assessing the income of the deceased in the facts of case, I
am inclined to take help of Notification issued by the
Commissioner and Competent Authority under the Minimum
Wages Act, 1948, Chhattisgarh Raipur wherein minimum wages
is fixed area/zone-wise. For agricultural labourer, under the
Notification issued from 01.10.2017 till 31.03.2018, minimum
wages fixed by the authority is Rs.7020/- per month. Therefore,
this Court find it appropriate to assess monthly income of the
deceased as Rs.7020/- per month. It is ordered accordingly.
Addition of 40% towards future prospects, application of
multiplier of 18 is correctly applied by learned Claims Tribunal.
Learned Tribunal has also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral
expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, however,
-20-
learned Claims Tribunal failed to award compensation under
head of ‘loss of consortium’. Principle of awarding
compensation towards loss of consortium has been dealt with
by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680.
The said principle has further been explained in the case of
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias
Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130. In the case of Nanu
Ram (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained that there
are three types of consortium i.e. spousal consortium, parental
consortium and filial consortium to be awarded to legal
representatives i.e. wife, children and parents of the deceased
at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. The Claimant are parents and
sister of the deceased. As per the law down in the case of Nanu
Ram (supra), each of appellant/claimants No. 1 & 2 being
parents will be entitled for amount of Rs.40,000/- towards loss
of filial consortium. It is ordered accordingly.
36. Further, in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Hon’ble Supreme
Court has also held that the amount under other conventional
heads should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three
years and enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span
of every three years. In the case at hand, accident is of year
2018. Hence, the appellants/claimants are entitled for 10%
enhancement on the amount under other conventional heads.
So, by enhancing the amount under other conventional heads
at the rate of 10% the appellants are now entitled for a sum of
-21-
Rs.16,500 (15000 + 10 %) towards loss of estate, Rs.16,500/-
(15000 + 10%) towards funeral expenses and Rs. 44,000/-
(40000 + 10%) to each of appellants No. 1 & 2 towards loss of
filial consortium.
37. For the foregoing discussions and the judgments of Hon’ble
Supreme Court as above, I find it appropriate to re-compute the
amount of compensation as under:-
S. N. Heads Compensation
1. (A) Loss of Income/dependency
7020 x 12 = 84,240
(B) Addition towards future prospects
@ 40% (84240 x 40% =33696)
84240 + 33696 = 1,17,936 Rs. 10,61,424
(C) Deduction of 50% towards
personal and living expenses
(1,17,936 x 50% =58,968)
117936- 58968 = 58,968
(D) Multiplier of 18
58968 x 18 = 10,61,424
4. Funeral Expenses : (+) Rs. 16,500
(15000 x 10%=1500)
15000 + 1500=16,500
5. Loss of Estate : (+) Rs. 16,500
(15000 x 10%=1500)
15000 + 1500=16,500
8. Loss of Filial Consortium of : (+) Rs. 88,000
Rs.44,000/- to each of claimants No.1
& 2 being parents of deceased
(40,000 x 10 % = 4400, 40000 + 4400
=44,000)
Total compensation : Rs. 11,82,424
-22-
38. Now the appellants/claimants are awarded total compensation
of Rs. 11,82,424/- instead of Rs.7,10,400/- as awarded by the
Claims Tribunal.
39. Aforementioned total amount of compensation shall carry
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim
application till its realization. Any amount of compensation
already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total
amount of compensation which has now been calculated and
awarded by this Court. Other conditions of impugned award
shall remain intact.
40. In the result, MAC No.925 of 2020 filed by appellants/claimants
is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as
indicated herein above. MAC No.835 of 2020 is dismissed.
Sd/--/- Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Praveen