Chattisgarh High Court
Reliance General Insurance Company … vs Khemin Bai on 22 January, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:4332
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1299 of 2017
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through its Legal Officer, the
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited 301 302 , Corporate House, 169
RNT Marg , Opposite Jhabua Tower, Indore (M.P.) (Respondent/Non-Applicant
No. 3)
[Insurer of vehicle Trialor bearing registration No. NL/01/D/6742]
… Appellant
versus
1 – Khemin Bai, aged about 49 years, Wd/o Late Kartik Ram Sinha,
2 – Gopesh Kumar Sinha, aged about 22 Years, S/o Late Kartik Ram
Both R/o – Attharah Acre, 26 Block, Qr. No. 2 Rajnandgaon Tahsil & District
Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
(Applicants/Claimants/Cross Objector)
3 – Mahavir Sahani S/o Late K. Sahani R/o Bhojpatti, P.S.- Sarai, Baishali,
District – Baishali (Bihar)
(Respondent/Non-applicant No.1)
[Driver of vehicle Trialor bearing registration No. NL/01/D/6742]
4 – M / S Aftab Road Carrier, Through Its Manager, 48 Jakariya Street, Street
Kolutola, Kolkata 70073 (West Bengal)
(Respondent / Non-Applicant No. 2)
[Registered owner of vehicle Trialor bearing registration No.
NL/01/D/6742]
(The Respondent No. 1 & 2 are mentioned as a Cross Objector)
… Respondents
2
For Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
Order on Board
22/01/2025
1. The appellant/Insurance Company has preferred this appeal under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act, 1988“)
challenging the award dated 24th January, 2017 passed by Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (for brevity ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in
Claim Case No. 178 of 2015 whereby the liability of payment of
compensation has been saddled upon the appellant/Insurance Company to
indemnify the award of ₹ 35,50,770/- along with interest @ 6 percent per
annum from the date of filing of claim petition, till its realization.
2. As against the compensation of Rs. 79,00,000/- claimed by the
unfortunate widow and son of deceased Kartik Ram Sinha, aged about 57
years and working on the post of Head Constable, by filing claim application
under Section 166 of MV Act for his death during the course of treatment on
17.08.2015 due to the motor accident occurred on 19.07.2015; the Claims
Tribunal awarded a total sum of ₹ 35,50,770/- as compensation along with
interest @ 6% from the date of filing of claim petition, till its actual payment.
3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of evidence led, material placed and
submissions made by the parties, held that the accident had occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of Tailor bearing registration No. N.L. 01/D/6742
(for short “offending vehicle”) by its driver respondent No. 3- Mahavir Sahani,
owned by M/s. Aftab Road Carrier, which dashed the Motorcycle bearing
registration No. CG-08 WU 1577 driven by Kartik Ram Sinha (deceased),
3
who died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the said accident
during course of treatment on 17.08.2015; appellant / Reliance General
Insurance Company Limited, who is insurer of offending vehicle, was held
liable for payment of compensation to the claimants, as it could not establish
the violation of policy conditions and assessed and awarded aforesaid sum
as compensation to the claimants.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ Insurance Company
submits that he is confining his appeal only with regard to the fact that
learned Claims Tribunal, while passing the impugned award and granting
compensation in favour of the claimants to the tune of ₹ 35,50,770/-, has not
deducted the income tax payable by the deceased on his annual income. He
further submits that since the deceased was working on the post of Head
Constable in the police department of State of Chhattisgarh, therefore,
compensation awarded to the claimants on account of medical expenses of
the deceased to the tune of ₹ 6,95,266/- is reimbursable from the department
of the deceased and wife of deceased Khemin Bai (AW-1) herself has
admitted in her cross-examination that she has received medical
reimbursement of deceased, despite that amount granted towards medical
expenses has been awarded to the claimants, therefore, he submits that on
aforesaid two counts, amount of compensation may be reduced suitably.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 &
2/claimants while referring to their cross-objection under Order 41, Rules 22
of the CPC for enhancement of the amount of compensation would submit
that while computing the amount of compensation in paragraph 21 of
impugned award, learned Claims Tribunal has not added any amount into the
annual income of the deceased towards future prospect, whereas, as per
4
dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Sethi1, the person belonging to age group of 50 – 60 years, having
permanent job, must be awarded 15% on the head of future prospect,
therefore, learned counsel submits that amount of compensation be
assessed after adding 15% in the annual income of the deceased towards
future prospect, as such, the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably.
6. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
award impugned including record of Claims Tribunal.
7. While assessing annual dependency of respondents No. 1 &
2/Claimants, learned Claims Tribunal has also granted Rs. 6,95,266/- on the
head of medical expenses incurred by them in getting treatment of the
deceased, as he was remained admitted in hospital for treatment till his death
i.e. on 17.08.2015, but the deceased was working as Head Constable in the
Police Department, therefore, he was eligible to get reimbursement of the
amount for his medical expenses. Even, wife of deceased i.e. Khemin Bai
(AW-01) herself has admitted in paragraph 9 of her cross-examination that
she had filed the medical bill of her husband (deceased) for reimbursement
alongwith the original documents of treatment to the Department and had
also received the amount, though she has not stated that how much amount,
she has received. But, since the deceased being a Government Employee
eligible to get medical reimbursement amount and his wife Khemin Bai
(AW-01) herself is admitting that she had filed the medical reimbursement bill
to the Department alongwith all original documents of treatment of her
husband and had also received the amount on this count, however, she did
not disclose that amount towards some medical bills had not been paid to the
claimants, which shows that claimants had not received full amounts towards
1 (2017) 16 SCC 680
5
medical bills. Therefore, it is found that amount of Rs.6,95,266/- granted by
the Tribunal towards medical expenses to the claimants on account of
treatment of deceased is not found to be just and proper, as such, it is
required to be deducted from the total amount of compensation granted in
favour of the claimants.
8. So far as not deducting income tax from the total income of deceased
is concerned, when specific question was posed to learned counsel for the
appellant / Insurance Company that whether Insurance Company has filed
any document to prove the fact that annual income of the deceased i.e.
Rs.4,50,084/- as per his salary slip (Ex.P-58) is fallen under the taxable
income, then he submits that no any document or evidence has been filed /
led by appellant/Insurance Company to prove aforesaid facts. As per salary
slip (Ex. P-58) of deceased of the month of July, 2015, his monthly salary
was Rs.37,507/- , as such, his annual income was Rs. 4,50,084/-. Since, it
has not been proved by the Insurance Company that aforesaid annual
income was taxable in the year 2015 and annual income of deceased was
not so high that it can be supposed that his annual income was taxable in the
year 2015, therefore, I do not find any substance on record to hold that not
deducting income tax from the annual income of the deceased by the learned
Tribunal is perverse or illegal, therefore, contention raised by counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company in this regard is not sustainable.
9. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (supra),
their Lordships of the Supreme Court has held that if the deceased was
having permanent job and he was aged between 50-60 years at the time of
incident, then 15% of his annual income be added while calculating his
annual income. But in the instant case, learned Claims Tribunal has not
6
added 15% towards future prospect in the annual income of the deceased
while computing the amount of compensation whereas since age of
deceased was 57 years at the time of incident and he was working on the
permanent post of Head Constable in the police department, therefore, his
annual income ought to have been calculated by adding 15% to his annual
income, as such, cross-appeal / cross-objection filed by the claimants /
respondents No. 1 & 2 deserves to be allowed to the extent indicated
hereinabove.
10. In view of above discussion, it is found that amount of compensation
granted by the Claims Tribunal is required to be revisited in respect of
medical expenses of Rs.6,95,266/- granted to the claimants on account
medical treatment of the deceased employee and 15% of annual income of
deceased /employee is required to be added while calculating the annual
income of the deceased.
11. In view of above, the claimants are held entitled for compensation as per
column 4 of the following table :-
Serial Head Awarded by the Awarded by this Court
No. Tribunal
(1) (2) (3) (4)
1. Income of the ₹ 4,50,084/- (Per ₹ 4,50,084/- (Per
deceased /salary annum) annum)
2. Future Prospect The Tribunal has not As per dictum of the
granted any sum on Supreme Court in the
this head. case of Pranay Sethi &
others (supra), 15% is
to be added towards
future prospect, then,
claimants’ annual income
would be ₹ 5,17,597/-
[₹4,50,084/- + 67,513/-]
3. 1/3 deduction 1/3rd deduction as 1/3rd deduction
towards personal assessed by the ₹5,17,597 – ₹1,72,532/-
and living Tribunal. = ₹3,45,065/-
expenses of the
7
deceased ₹ 4,50,084/- -
₹1,50,028/- =
₹ 3,00,056-
4. Annual loss of ₹ 3,00,056/- ₹3,45,065/-
dependency
5. Multiplier of 9 for ₹3,00,056/- x 9 ₹3,45,065/- x 9
assessing total = ₹27,00,504/- = Rs.31,05,585/-
loss of
dependency
6. Loss of ₹ 1,00,000/- ₹ 1,00,000/-
consortium
7. Loss of love & ₹ 35,000/- ₹ 35,000/-
affection
8. Medical expenses ₹ 6,95,266/- Nil
9. For Funeral ₹ 20,000/- ₹20,000/-
expenses
10. Total ₹ 35,50,770/- ₹ 33,60,585/-
Compensation
12. Thus, the claimants would become entitle for ₹ 33,60,585/- as
compensation in place of ₹ 35,50,770/- as awarded by the Tribunal.
13. In view of foregoing, the appeal is allowed in part. The compensation
of ₹ 35,50,770/-awarded by the Claims Tribunal is reduced to ₹ 33,60,585/-.
The amount of compensation as reduced above i.e. ₹ 33,60,585/ – shall carry
interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of application, till its actual payment.
Rest of conditions mentioned in the award shall remain intact. The award
stands modified to the above extent.
14. The Appellant / Reliance General Insurance Company Limited is
granted two months’ time to deposit above reduced amount of compensation
along with aforesaid interest before the concerned Claims Tribunal, if the
same has not been deposited yet. No order as to costs.
15. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant / Insurance Company is
allowed in part and cross-appeal filed by appellants/claimants is allowed to
8
the extent indicated hereinabove.
16. Record of Claims Tribunal be returned forthwith to the concerned
Claims Tribunal alongwith copy of this order.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Amit/-
AMIT Digitally signed
by AMIT KUMAR
KUMAR DUBEY
Date: 2025.01.29
DUBEY 10:42:58 +0530
[ad_1]
Source link