Chattisgarh High Court
Shatruhan Sahu vs Nadeem Khan on 28 March, 2025
1/7
2025:CGHC:15029
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 537 of 2020
1. Shatruhan Sahu S/o Late Parasram Sahu, Aged About 57 Years.
2. Khubiram S/o Shatruhan Sahu, Aged About 24 Years
Both are R/o Kathiya, Ward No. 3, Police Station And District Bemetara
Chhattisgarh. Present Address Bazarpara Birgaon, Police Station Urla,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
--- Appellants/ Claimants
versus
1. Nadeem Khan S/o Nazir Khan R/o Ward No. 23 Mahavir Chowk,
Kawardha, Police Station Kawardha, District Kawardha Chhattisgarh.
(Driver of Vehicle No. C.G. 07/MA/9159, District : Kawardha
(Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh)
2. Motidas, S/o Garibdas, Village Chikhla, Police Station Saja, District
Bemetara Chhattisgarh. (Owner of Vehicle No. C.G. 07/MA/9159,
District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh)
3. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager,
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., 4th Floor, Maruti Height
Mahoba Bazar, Raipur, Police Station Aamanaka, Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of Vehicle No. C.G. 07/MA/9159,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh)
--- Respondents
____________________________________________________________
For Appellants : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate
For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Utsav Mahishwar, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu PAWAN
KUMAR
Order On Board JHA
Digitally
28/03/2025 signed by
PAWAN
KUMAR JHA
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 30.01.2020 passed by Learned
Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
(for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 54/2019, whereby learned
2/7
Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) in part and awarded total sum of
Rs. 5,54,000/- as compensation in death case.
2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 24.08.2018
at about 4.30 p.m., appellant No. 1 Shatrughan Sahu was riding his bicycle
with his wife Draupati Sahu sitting behind him. When they reached near
village Kathia, police station-Bemetara, non-applicant No. 1/ driver of pickup
vehicle no. CG 07-MA-9159 (“offending vehicle”), while driving the said
vehicle rashly and negligently hit the bicycle, as a result of which Draupati
Sahu, who was sitting behind the bicycle, suffered grievous injuries and died
on the spot. Appellant no. 1 Shatrughan Sahu also suffered serious injuries,
who was admitted to Heritage Hospital, Raipur. In connection with the above
accident, a crime number 440/2018 for alleged offences under Sections 279,
337 and 304(A) of the IPC was registered at police station Bemetara on
24.08.2018.
3. Appellants, husband and the child of deceased, filed an application under
Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking Rs. 13,16,000/- as compensation
pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was about 44 years of
age, was an able bodied woman, was the earning member of her family. At
the time of the accident, the deceased used to work in a confectionery shop,
from which she used to earn Rs. 9,000/- per month.
4. Non-applicant 1 & 2/ Respondent No. 1 & 2- driver and owner filed their joint
reply, denying the pleadings made in the claim application. It was further
denied that the driver of the offending vehicle caused the accident by driving
fast and negligently and that Draupati Sahu died as a result of the injuries
sustained in that accident and that Shatrughan Sahu suffered serious injuries
who was admitted to the hospital for treatment. It is further stated that at the
time of the accident, Shatrughan Sahu himself was riding his bicycle
3/7
carelessly in the wrong direction, he himself was responsible for the accident.
Similarly, it has been denied that at the time of the accident, Draupati Sahu
was a 44-year-old healthy woman and earning member of her family and was
earning a monthly income of Rs. 9,000/- by working in a sweet shop. It is
their statement that the appellants have made exaggerated claim to gain
financial benefits based on false and fabricated grounds. At the time of the
said accident, the driver/non-applicant No. 1 had a valid and effective driving
license, having all the documents of the vehicle and the vehicle was insured
with non-applicant No.3. If the compensation amount is determined, then
non-applicant number-3 insurance company is responsible for its payment
and prayed for dismissal of claim filed against them.
5. Non-applicant No. 3/ Resp. No. 3-Insurance Company in its reply, apart from
accepting the undisputed facts, has denied the pleadings made in the
application and further denied that the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving by the non-applicant No. 1/ driver of the offending vehicle
and that Draupati Sahu died as a result of the accident. It is further stated
that the accident occurred due to negligent driving by the appellant
Shatrughan Sahu. Similarly, it is also stated that the appellants are not
dependents of the deceased Draupati Sahu, due to which they are not
entitled to compensation. At the time of the accident, the offending vehicle
was being driven in violation of conditions of Insurance Policy as the non-
applicant No. 1 was driving the offending vehicle without a valid and effective
driving license and the vehicle did not have fitness and permit at the time of
accident, hence the insurance company is not responsible to satisfy
compensation and prayed that the claim application filed against it be
dismissed.
6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence
placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Draupati Sahu
4/7
died because of injuries suffered due to rash and negligent driving of
offending vehicle by non-applicant 1. Breach of conditions of the insurance
policy and contributory negligence was not found to be proved. Tribunal
holding the non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company liable to pay the
compensation amount, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded
Rs. 5,54,000/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date
of filing of claim application.
7. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that Claims Tribunal erred in
awarding meagre sum of compensation of Rs. 5,54,000/-. He contended that
learned Claims Tribunal has not considered the occupation and income of
deceased pleaded and stated by the appellants-claimants and has
erroneously taken income as Rs. 5,000/- per month. He contended that the
deceased was working in a confectionery shop for earning her livelihood and
her family, therefore, the income as pleaded in the application ought to have
been taken for calculating amount of compensation. Even if the income of
deceased is to be taken on notional basis treating her to be unskilled
labourer, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken the wages as
prevailing on the date of accident. Deceased held to be aged about 55 years
as per post mortem report on the date of accident, the learned Tribunal has
applied 10% of the future prospects which in terms of decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 is correct and further the Tribunal has
applied deduction of 1/3 of loss of dependency and multiplier of 11 which is
also rightly applied in view of the decision in the case of Sarla Verma &
others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. It is
next contended that learned Claims Tribunal has erroneously not awarded
any amount towards parental consortium to appellant No. 2, to the child, as
held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance
5/7
Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in
(2018) 18 SCC 130.
8. Learned counsel for Respondent 3-Insurance Company would oppose the
submission of learned counsel for appellants and further submits that the
appellants failed to prove the occupation and the income of deceased by
bringing cogent and reliable piece of evidence, hence, the Claims Tribunal
has rightly taken the income on notional basis treating the deceased to be
labourer. The amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal
is just and proper which does not call for any interference of this Court.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the
record.
10. Sofar as, the submission of learned counsel for the appellants with regard to
assessment of income of the deceased in concerned, accident was of
24.04.2018, occupation of deceased is pleaded as worker in a confectionery
shop. True it is that the appellants-claimants failed to produce any admissible
piece of evidence to prove income of deceased. But for assessing income on
notional basis, factors like date of accident, age of deceased, wage structure,
price index etc. are to be taken into consideration. In the said facts of the
case, the occupation of deceased can only be treated as a labourer for the
purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. Therefore, this Court
finds it appropriate to take the amount of wages fixed by the competent
authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the period 01.10.2017 to
31.03.2018, as the accident occurred in the year 2018. The monthly wages
fixed by the competent authority for Class-A city is Rs. 8320/- per month.
Upon taking into consideration the aforementioned factors, particularly the
date of accident, age of deceased and nature of occupation to be labourer, I
find it appropriate to assess income of deceased as Rs. 8320/- per month
6/7
instead of Rs. 5000/- per month, as the deceased was residing and working
in industrial city, Raipur, C.G. It is ordered accordingly.
11. In the case at hand, deceased was 55 years of age on the date of accident
as held by Tribunal, hence, there will be addition of 10% of established
income in the income of deceased for assessing total income of deceased for
purpose of calculating compensation as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla
Verma (supra) has issued guidelines for deducting personal and living
expenses based on number of dependents upon deceased and held that
where the dependents are two to three, there will be deduction of 1/3rd and
where the number of dependents are 4 to 6 there will be deduction of 1/4th as
the case may be. In the instant case, there are 2 dependents, hence, there
will be deduction of 1/3rd of the income of deceased towards personal and
living expenses. It is ordered accordingly. Appellants-claimants shall further
be entitled for amount of compensation on other conventional heads as held
by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Nanu Ram
(supra).
12. For the foregoing reasons, I find it appropriate to recompute the amount of
compensation to be awarded to the claimants as under.
13. Income of deceased is assessed as Rs. 8,320/- per month ie. Rs. 99,840/-
per annum. Upon adding 10% of the income of the deceased towards future
prospects, yearly income of deceased on the date of accident will come to
Rs. 1,09,824/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses,
annual loss of dependency will come to Rs.73,216/-. As the deceased held to
be 55 years of age on the date of accident on the basis of post mortem
report, multiplier of 11 would be applied for the age group between 51 to 55
years to the annual loss of dependency as per the decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Upon applying multiplier
7/7
of 11, total loss of dependency will come to Rs. 8,05,376/- [Rs.73,216×11].
Besides the amount of compensation towards loss of dependency,
appellants-claimants shall further be entitled for Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of
spousal consortium, Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of parental consortium to
appellant No. 2, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards
funeral expenses.
14. Now the appellants-claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation
of Rs. 9,15,376/- [Rs. 8,05,376 + Rs.40,000 + Rs.40,000 + Rs.15,000 +
Rs.15,000] instead of Rs. 5,54,000/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal.
Aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the
date of filing of claim application till its realization. Other conditions of the
impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount paid to the appellants
pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of
compensation as calculated above.
15. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to
the extent as indicated herein-above.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
pwn
[ad_1]
Source link