[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
Rajesh Chhabra vs Sharad Ganbir on 8 May, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2025:CGHC:21969
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 848 of 2020
1. Rajesh Chhabra S/o Late Jagatram Aged About 49 Years R/o
Dayalband Punjabi Colony Tehsil And District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
2. Smt. Varsha Chhabra W/o Rajesh Aged About 46 Years R/o
Dayalband Punjabi Colony Tehsil And District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
3. Sakshi Chhabra D/o Rajesh Aged About 19 Years R/o
Dayalband Punjabi Colony Tehsil And District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
... Appellants/ Claimants
versus
1. Sharad Ganbir S/o Hemchand Ganbir Aged About 42 Years
Resident No. L.I.G.D. - 104 Tarbahar Bilaspur, Tehsil And
District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Driver of the vehicle No.
CG/10/V/4614)
2. Smt. Urvashi Kaushik S/o Shri Shiv Shankar Kaushik R/o Ajaz
Chouk Mangla Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, (Owner of
the Vehicle No. CG/10/V/4614),
3. Branch Manager The New India Assurance Com Ltd Rajive
Plaza, Near Old Bus Stand Bilaspur Tehsil And District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Insurer Of The Vehicle No.
C.G./10/v/4614).
2
... Respondents
For Appellants : Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Aditya Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr.
Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order On Board
08/05/2025
1. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is being heard
finally.
2. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned 8th
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short ‘the Claims
Tribunal’) vide award dated 23.1.2020 passed in Claim Case
No.709/2018.
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 22.4.2018 when Suyash
Chhabra was going to Link Road from Dayalband Bilaspur, on
the way, one Scorpio vehicle bearing registration number
CG10-V-4614 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), driven by non-
applicant No.1 in a high speed and negligent manner, dashed
Suyash Chhabra as a result he sustained grievous injuries on
his head, nose, face, chest and other parts. He was
immediately taken to Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur for treatment.
Looking to critical condition of Suyash, he was admitted in
Ramkrishna Hospital, Raipur on 23.4.20218 where during
3
course of treatment he succumbed to injuries on 27.4.2018.
Report of accident was lodged in Police Station Tarbahar,
Bilaspur based on which Crime bearing No.122/2018 was
registered for alleged offences punishable under Sections 279,
4. Claimants/ appellants herein, who are parents and sister of
deceased, filed an application claiming compensation to the
tune of Rs.71,40,000/- under various heads on the ground that
on the date of accident, deceased was 23 years of age, he
was earning Rs.25,000/- per month by doing work of building
interior and Rs.5,000/- by working in the shop of his father
situated in Budhwari Bazar, Bilaspur. They were dependent on
earning of deceased and on account of his death in road
accident, they have suffered loss of income.
5. Non-applicant No.1 submitted reply to application and denied
the pleadings made therein. It was pleaded that burden to
prove occupation and income of deceased was on claimants.
At the time of accident, non-applicant No.1 was driving
offending vehicle in normal speed, deceased came in front of
his vehicle all of a sudden, which was the cause of accident.
Non-applicant No.1 has purchased the offending vehicle on
7.6.2017 from non-applicant No.2, but till the date of accident
the same could not be transferred in the name of non-applicant
4
No.1. The claimants have sought exaggerated compensation.
On the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with
non-applicant No.3, therefore, insurance company is liable to
indemnify the insured.
6. Non-applicant No.2 also filed reply to application and denied
all the averments made therein. It was pleaded that the
offending vehicle has been sold by her to non-applicant No.1
and as such, non-applicant No.2 was not the owner of
offending vehicle on the date of accident.
7. Non-applicant No.3- Insurance Company submitted its reply
denying the averments made in application. Insurance of
offending vehicle is denied for want of verification of insurance
policy. It was also pleaded that information regarding accident
was not given to insurance company and even the papers
relating to offending vehicle like RC book, permit, fitness
certificate, insurance policy, driving license etc. have not been
got verified. At the time of accident, non-applicant No.1 was
not possessing valid and effective driving license and the
offending vehicle was used for commercial purpose, which was
in violation of conditions of insurance policy. Under these
circumstances, the insurance company is not liable to
indemnify the insured.
8. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the pleadings and
5
evidence placed on record (oral and documentary both) by the
respective parties has arrived at a conclusion that accident
was the result of rash and negligent driving of non-applicant
No.1-driver; there was no breach of any condition of insurance
policy. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal partly allowed claim
application and awarded compensation of Rs.15,36,503/-
along with interest @ 6% p.a.
9. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submits that the
appellants in their application as also evidence have
specifically stated that deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per
month by doing work of building interior, however, the Claims
Tribunal has assessed monthly income of deceased at
Rs.8,620/- notionally on the ground that claimants did not
produce any concrete evidence establishing occupation and
income of deceased. She submits that a person doing work of
Building Interior cannot be equated with an ordinary labour,
who can even be an uneducated person, for the purpose of
assessing income. She further submits that the claimants
have handed over B.Com. 1st and 2nd year mark sheets of
deceased to the counsel, which are also part of the record as
unexhibited documents. From the mark sheets it is appearing
that deceased was a graduate and therefore, even the notional
income of the deceased cannot be less than minimum wages
6
payable to an skilled labour under the Minimum Wages Act
1948. She further submits that the Claims Tribunal has not
awarded any amount towards loss of consortium. Hence, she
prays that the amount of compensation awarded to appellants
be enhanced suitably.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respective respondents
opposes submissions of learned counsel for appellants and
submit that in absence of any clinching evidence brought on
record by claimants, the Claims Tribunal was justified in
assessing income of deceased on notional basis. The award
passed by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper, which does
not call for any interference.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
of the Claims Tribunal.
12. Perusal of the record would show that apart from exhibited
documents, unexhibited documents are also available in record.
Unexhibited documents contain two mark sheets of deceased
i.e. of B. Com. 1st year and 2nd year. PAN card of deceased is
also available at Page No.24 of unexhibited documents, which
shows that deceased was also registered with the Income Tax
Department. Award of compensation in motor accident cases
under the Act of 1988 is in the form of social welfare. The Act
of 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation, therefore, for
7
awarding compensation to the family members of deceased,
the Court has to assess compensation with a broader
approach. Compensation should be just considering facts of
each case. Straight jacket formula cannot be applied.
Sometimes some guess work has to be done for assessing
income of deceased.
13. In case at hand, it is true that the claimants failed to prove the
occupation and income of deceased as pleaded in application
by producing clinching evidence, hence, the Claims Tribunal
justified in adopting procedure for assessing income of
deceased on notional basis. However, the Courts/Tribunals
while assessing income on national basis has to keep in mind
the educational qualification of the deceased, wage prevailing,
price index, cost of living and wage rate notified by the
competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
Though the documents relating to educational qualification of
deceased are not exhibited on behalf of claimants, but mark
sheets of B.Com. 1st year & 2nd year as also PAN card of
deceased available in record as un-exhibited documents. A
labourer may be an uneducated person and therefore in the
facts and circumstances of the case, where claimants have
produced mark sheets of B.Com. 1st year & 2nd year as also
PAN card of deceased, I find it appropriate to assess income of
8
the deceased as Rs.10,000/- in place of Rs.8,620/- as
assessed by the Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly.
14. Impugned award reveals that while computing the
compensation the Claims Tribunal has not awarded anything for
loss of consortium. In case of Magma General Insurance
Company Limited versus Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and
others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that the husband, widow, children and parents
each are entitled for Rs,40,000/- towards loss of consortium. In
case at hand, there is no dispute that appellant No.1 and 2 are
parents of deceased who died in a road accident and therefore,
they are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of filial
consortium. It is ordered accordingly. However, appellant No.3
being sister of the deceased is not entitled to any compensation
under the head ‘loss of consortium’.
15. As regards compensation for loss of love and affection, the
Claims Tribunal was not justified in awarding compensation
under the aforesaid head for the reason that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and others, (2021) 11 SCC
780, has held that “loss of love and affection‟ is comprehended
in loss of consortium and there is no justification to award
compensation towards loss of love and affection under a
9
separate head. Similarly, in addition to the compensation for
monetary loss, separate compensation to appellants on ground
of mental agony should not have been awarded. There cannot
be award of any compensation towards mental agony for the
death of the son. Therefore, the amount awarded under the
heads of love and affection, mental shock and agony cannot be
sustained and the same is to be reduced. It is ordered
accordingly.
16. The Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,83,159/-
towards medical expenses based upon the documents brought
on record by the claimants, therefore, the same does not calls
for any interference.
17. For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of
compensation payable to the claimants/appellants.
18. Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.10,000/- per
month and thus annual income of deceased comes to
Rs.1,20,000/-. After adding 40% towards future prospects, the
total income of deceased comes to Rs.168000/-. Since the
deceased was bachelor at the time of accident, one-half is to be
deducted towards his personal expenses. After deducting one-
half, annual dependency would come to Rs.84000/-. Applying
multiplier of 18, as applied by Claims Tribunal, the loss of
dependency would be Rs.15,12,000/- (84000×18). Besides
10
this, appellant No.1 & 2 are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/-
each towards spousal consortium i.e. Rs.80,000/-, as held by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Nanu Ram @
Chuharu Ram (supra). In addition to aforesaid amount,
appellants are 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.18,05,159/- (15,12,000 +
1,83,159+ 40000 + 40000 + 15000 + 15000). This amount of
compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of
application till actual payment is made. Rest of the conditions
mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. Any
amount disbursed to appellant pursuant to impugned award
shall be adjusted.
19.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned
award stands modified to the extent indicated above.
Digitally
SYED signed
ROSHAN by SYED
ZAMIR
ALI
ROSHAN
ZAMIR
Sd/-
ALI (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
roshan/-
[ad_2]
Source link