Chattisgarh High Court
Nam Das vs Aamin Khan on 16 June, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
SYED
ROSHAN
ZAMIR ALI
1
Digitally
signed by
SYED
ROSHAN
ZAMIR ALI
2025:CGHC:24523
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1830 of 2019
1. Nam Das S/o Late Kunjbihari Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o
Village Amli Malgi, Police Station Pandatarai In Place Of
Police Station Kunda Is Wrongly Mentioned In Impugned
Judgment, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District :
Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh
2. Santoshi Bai D/o Kunjbihari Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o
Village Amli Malgi, Police Station Pandatarai In Place Of
Police Station Kunda Is Wrongly Mentioned In Impugned
Judgment, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District :
Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh
... Appellants-claimants
Versus
1. Aamin Khan S/o Mahmud Khan Aged About 29 Years R/o
Village Dhakoli, District Alwav, Rajasthan.
2. Fajrudddin S/o Nasir Khan Aged About 37 Years R/o Village
Palka, Police Station E.N.B., Tahsil & District Alwar,
Rajasthan.
3. The United India Insurance Company Limited Balaji Tower
First Floor 81, New Subhash Nagar, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate.
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate
2
Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order on Board
16/6/2025
1. Appellant-claimant has filed this appeal challenging the award
dated 11.7.2019 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Kabirdham (for short ‘the
Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.68/2018 by which learned
Claims Tribunal allowed application of appellant in part and
awarded total compensation of Rs.80,000/- to
claimants/appellants herein, in a death case.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that appellant filed an
application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune
of Rs.17,50,000/- under various heads, for the death of their
mother Jhariharin Bai in a motor vehicular accident. According
to claimants, on 21.5.2018 at about 5:15 p.m. Jhariharin Bai
was returing home on motorcycle. Appellant No.1 was riding
the motorcycle and Jhariharin Bai was a pillion. When they
reached near Chaarbhanta Chouraha, truck bearing
regisration number RJ02-GB-5148 (for short ‘the offending
vehicle’), which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by
its driver, dashed their motorcycle due to which Jhariharin Bai
fell down and offending vehicle ran over her as a result she
died on the spot.
3. Driver and owner of offending motorcycle filed reply denying
3
allegation of negligent driving and pleading that accident
resulting in death of deceased occurred due to negligent
driving of motorcycle by its driver who lost control over it.
Insurance Company also filed a separate reply pleading that
claimants being major son and daughter of deceased are not
entitled for compensation. At the time of accident, driver of
offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving
licence at the time of the accident and, therefore, insurance
company is not liable to pay the compensation.
4. The Claims Tribunal upon analyzing the materials brought on
record by the parties, came to the conclusion that accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending
vehicle by its driver and accordingly, allowed application in
part, awarded total compensation of Rs.80,000/- i.e.
Rs.65,000/- to son and Rs.15,000/- to daughter.
5. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submits that the
Claims Tribunal erred in awarding only Rs.80,000/- as
compensation to the appellants by recording that they were
not dependent on the deceased. He submits that appellant
No.1 is unmarried and hails from lower strata of society, for
the purpose of maintaining satisfactory living standard, he
was dependent upon the income of her mother also. Hence,
the Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed amount of
compensation considering the income of deceased as
4
pleaded in the application, adding future prospects to it and
applying the multiplier as per law. Hence, she prays for
enhancement of compensation suitably.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.3 vehemently opposes submissions of learned
counsel for the appellants and submits that the compensation
awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and it does
not call for any interference. He contended that the claimants
who lost their parents or any family member and dependent
on the income of deceased, are only entitled to
compensation. Appellant No.1 is major son and appellant
No.2 is married daughter of the deceased. They were not
dependent on the deceased or her income. In support of his
contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in cases of Manjuri Bera (Smt) vs Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. and another, reported in (2007) 10
SCC 643 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vinish Jain &
ors, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 619.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and
perused record of claim case including impugned award.
8. Claimants-appellants, who are major son and daughter of the
deceased, have filed application seeking compensation on
the ground that they are legal heirs of deceased who was
earning Rs.90,000/- per annum by doing work of agriculture
5
and due to untimely death of their mother, they suffered loss
of income. Age of deceased on the date of accident was 55
years, as mentioned in the postmortem report.
9. Appellant No.1 Nam Das was examined as NAW-1 before the
Claims Tribunal. He has stated in his statement about the
manner in which accident occurred with offending vehicle. He
has further deposed that his sister is married and residing
with her husband in village Ruse and is being maintained by
her husband.
10. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of evidence
available in record, recorded in Para-14 of impugned award
that on the date of accident, appellant No.1 was unmarried
and his mother was taking care of him. In the aforementioned
facts of the case, when appellant No.1 was unmarried,
deceased might be taking care of the house, preparing food
for appellant No.1, maintaining house, washing clothes and
utensils etc.
11. In the aforementioned facts, where appellant No.1 is
unmarried son, the Claims Tribunal erred in not considering
that appellant No.1 was dependent upon the deceased, who
was doing all household works like cooking food, cleaning
clothes and utensils, taking care of appellant No.1 and may
also expending money of her income upon him in natural
course. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, appellant No.1 on
6
the date of accident was dependent upon deceased and
being so, the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that
appellant No.1 was not dependent upon the deceased is not
sustainable and it is hereby set aside.
12. As per evidence of appellant No.1, appellant No.2 is married
and residing along with her husband in her matrimonial home.
Therefore, she cannot be treated to be dependent on
deceased on the date of accident. Hence, the finding
recorded by the Claims Tribunal that appellant No.2 was not
dependent on the deceased does not call for any interference
and it is hereby maintained.
13. So far as assessment of compensation is concerned, Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of Kirti vs. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. & ors, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 166 considering the
claim against death of a lady, who was home maker, has
observed thus:-
“31. Returning to the question of how such notional
income of a homemaker is to be calculated, there can
be no fixed approach. It is to be understood that in such
cases the attempt by the Court is to fix an approximate
economic value for all the work that a homemaker does,
impossible though that task may be. Courts must keep
in mind the idea of awarding just compensation in such
cases, looking to the facts and circumstances…”
14. The work done by a mother in maintaining the house, cooking
food and taking care of appellant No.1-son, cannot be less
7
than the work of a labourer and therefore the corresponding
income against the said works would not be less than the
wages of a labourer. The accident occurred on 21.5.2017.
Deceased was resident of District Kabirdham. Hence, this
Court fixes income of deceased at Rs.7,800/- per month, on
the basis of the wage rate prescribed by the Competent
Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the period
from 1.4.2017 to 30.9.2017 for a unskilled labour residing in
Zone ‘C’ city. It is ordered accordingly.
15. Keeping in view the age of deceased to be 55 years, there
shall be addition of 10% towards future aspects, as held in
case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and
others, (2017) 16 SCC 680; deduction of one-half from the
income of deceased towards her personal and living
expenses and multiplier of 11 will be applicable, as held in
case of Sarla Verma vs. DTC, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.
As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram,
reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, appellant No.1 & 2 will also
be entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards parental
consortium.
16.For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount
of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants.
17.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.7,800/- per
8
month and after adding 10% towards future prospects,
monthly income of deceased would come to Rs.8,580/- and
annual income would be Rs.1,02,960/-. Out of this amount,
one-half is to be deducted towards personal and living
expenses of deceased, as held above. After deducting one-
half, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.51,480/-.
As deceased was 52 years of age, upon applying multiplier of
11 to annual loss of dependency, total loss of dependency will
come to Rs.5,66,280/-. Besides this, appellants are entitled
for a sum of Rs.80,000/- (40000×2) towards parental
consortium. In addition to aforesaid amount, appellant No.1 is
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.6,76,280/- This amount of
compensation shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of
application till actual payment is made.
18.Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall
remain intact. Any amount disbursed to appellants pursuant
to impugned award will be adjusted from the amount of
compensation as awarded above.
19.In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned
award stands modified to the extent indicated above.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
roshan/