1 2025:CGHC:19828 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 872 of 2020 1 - National Insurance Co. Ltd. Khajanchi Ka Chouraha Valensleganj Mirjapur Uttar Pardesh , Pin Code 231001, Through Divisional Manager Divisional Office Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Co.) --- Appellant versus 1 - Firoz Ansari S/o Rafi Ahmad Aged About 28 Years Profession Labour R/o Village Wadrafnagar Tahsil Wadrafnagar Police Out Post Wadrafnagar Police Station Basantpur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. Resident Of Village And Police Station Bagandi Tahsil Chhuriya District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 2 - Nitin Singh S/o Rajkumar Singh R/o Village Haribhanpur Sevapuri Police Station Kapsethi Janpad Varanasi District Varansi Uttar Pradesh. Pin Code 221001 (Owner Of The Vehicle) 3 - Sarwan Kumar S/o Ramashray Aged About 28 Years R/o Village And Post Sukrit Police Station Kotwali Rabatrsgunj Janpad Sonbhadra District Sonbhadra Uttar Pradesh Pin Code 231216 (Driver Of The Vehicle) --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Praveen Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Hari Om Rai, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 01/05/2025 SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 1. Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the impugned award dated 15.01.2020, passed in Claim Case No. 57 of 2018, whereby the learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ramanujganj, District – Balrampur – Ramanujganj (C.G.) allowed the application filed by the applicant/respondents No.1 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and awarded compensation of Rs.15,67,000/- on account of death of Sabrin Begum, who died in road accident. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on on 01.05.2017 at about 6.45 AM, applicant/claimant was taking his wife Sabrin Begum on motor cycle to Robertsganj to appear in the examination at the same, time, near Village Dala over bridge, respondent No.3 by driving the offending truck bearing registration No. UP-65-BT-9667 in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motor cycle of the applicant/claimant and caused accident, due to which Sabrin Begum suffered grievance injuries on her body and succumbed to the injuries. 3. Claimant/respondents No1 filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.79,90,000/- pleading therein that at the time of accident, the deceased was 22 years of healthy woman, she was imparting tuition to the children and thereby earning Rs.10,000/- per month. It was pleaded that deceased was an educated lady and at the time of accident she was going to appear in the final examination of BA final year. Claimant had also sought compensation under all other heads as are available to them like loss of future income, for love and affection and loss of consortium etc. 4. Non-applicant No.1 & 2/respondent No.2 and 3, owner and driver of the offending vehicle submitted reply to the claim application and 3 denied the pleadings made in the application. The involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident was also denied. It was pleaded that in order to get compensation, the offending vehicle was falsely implicated in this case. The occupation and the income of deceased to be of Rs.10,000/- per month was also denied by non-applicant/ appellant. It was further pleaded that the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy and without valid permit and fitness certificate. 5. Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, the learned Claims Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non- applicant No.2, due to which deceased suffered grievous injuries and died and awarded total compensation of Rs.15,67,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation. 6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that this appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company, the insurer of the offending vehicle truck challenging the amount awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal on three grounds firstly that there was breach of condition of insurance policy as the vehicle was being plied without there being proper permit and fitness certificate issued by the competent authority of relevant period. Second ground is that the alleged truck insured by appellant/Insurance Company was not involved in the accident and the accident occurred due to negligence act on the pat of the driver of the motor cycle and thirdly the quantum of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. It is submitted that the claimants has pleaded 4 that deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by providing tuition to the children, however, no clinching and admissible piece of evidence has been brought on record, hence, the income of the deceased, if any, is to be considered on notional basis for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidence documentary and oral have rightly come to the conclusion that breach of conditions of insurance policy could not be proved. The offending vehicle truck is involved in the accident, who dashed the motor cycle from its rear side. Driver of the offending vehicle in his evidence has stated that on the date of accident there was valid permit and fitness certificate and he has also proved by placing it on record as Ex.D2-C permit and Ex.D3-C fitness. Document Ex.D-5 is driving licence, therefore, the grounds raised by learned counsel for appellant of non-involvement of vehicle and also the breach of policy condition is not sustainable. He next contended that in order to prove the pleadings with respect to income and earning of deceased by imparting tuition to the children is concerned, the claimants himself is examined as AW-1 and one of the neighbors namely Rajesh Kushwaha, whose child was taught by deceased is also examined as AW-2, who categorically stated in his evidence that deceased was imparting tuition to his child and therefore, there is sufficient material to prove the fact of deceased imparting tuition to children and there is no error in the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal to that effect. 5 8. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 9. So far as the first ground raised by learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that on the date of accident, there was no effective permit and fitness certificate is concerned, perusal of the record would show that driver of the offending vehicle was examined as NAW-1, in his evidence he categorically made statement that on the date of accident, there was valid permit and fitness and he also submitted the copy of license Ex.D-5. Copy of the permit is placed on record as Ex.D2-C, perusal of which would show that permit was issued in the year 2012 and its date of expiry is 25.10.2017, whereas the date of accident is 01.05.2017 i.e. within the currency period of permit. Hence, the submission of learned counsel for appellant that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was not having valid permit is not sustainable. So far as the next ground raised by learned counsel for appellant with respect to the breach of conditions of policy that there was no fitness corticate of the offending vehicle on the date of accident is concerned, perusal of the record would show that fitness certificate of vehicle was issued on 15.10.2016 and the date of expiry of fitness certificate (Ex.D3-C) is mentioned as 21.10.2017, hence, the submission of learned counsel for appellant that on the date of accident, that there was no fitness certificate, is also not sustainable in view of the evidence available on record. The Insurance Company has not entered into the witness box to question the document Ex.D2- C and Ex.D3-C submitted on record, hence, in absence of any evidence on record by the Insurance Company, the finding recorded 6 by the learned Claims Tribunal based on the appreciation of evidence available on record on the permit and fitness certificate cannot be said to be erroneous. For the forgoing discussions, the grounds raised by learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company that there was breach of conditions of insurance policy as there was no valid permit and fitness certificate is not sustainable and accordingly, it is repelled. 10. The other ground raised by learned counsel for appellant that the vehicle truck insured by Insurance Company is not involved in the accident is concerned, in the facts and the evidence available on record in the opinion of this Court is also not sustainable. The accident is dated 01.05.2017, report of the accident was lodged on the same day i.e. 01.05.2017, in the FIR there is specific mention of truck bearing registration No.UP-65-BT-9667 driven by respondent No.3 driver of the truck rashly and negligently dashed the motor cycle of complainant/informant and in the said accident, his wife pillion rider came under the truck and died. The postmortem report filed as Ex.P-4 would show that the deceased suffered crushed injuries over her person which supports the claim of claimant/applicant that death of his wife was on account of motor accident as after dashing of motor cycle by truck from rear side, his wife came under the truck and the truck run over her. In view of the documentary evidence available i.e. FIR and the postmortem report and the evidence of claimant/respondent No.1, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that death of the deceased and wife of respondent No.1 is on account of accident caused by offending vehicle truck insured by appellant/insurance company due to rash and 7 negligent driving of truck by non-applicant No.3/driver. For the foregoing discussions, the second ground raised by learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company is also not sustainable and accordingly it is repelled. 11. The third ground raised by learned counsel for appellant with respect to quantum of amount of compensation on the ground that the learned Claims Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month without there being any acceptable and clinching evidence brought on record by the claimant is concerned, upon perusal of the record it revealed that the claimant in the claim application has pleaded the occupation of the deceased of imparting tuition to the children. Monthly income pleaded is Rs.10,000/- per month. Monthly income pleaded is Rs.10,000/- per month. To prove the said pleadings, claimant has examined himself as AW-1 and in support of the pleadings made in the application has also submitted document Ex.P-5, certificate with respect to imparting tuition to the children of Rajesh Kushwaha. Rajesh Kushwaha is examined as AW- 2 and in his evidence he stated that his children are being taught by the deceased, wife of claimant/respondent No.1. In his evidence he has not specifically stated about actual age of the child, in which class he or she was studying and further in paragraph 5 of the cross- examination, he admitted that certificate with respect to imparting tuition to his child submitted before learned Claims Tribunal was not in his writing and the said certificate was in hand writing of claimant/husband of deceased. Copy of the mark-sheets of deceased, which is collectively placed on record as Ex.P-6 would show that these mark-sheets are of BA-I, BA-II, and BA-III year. There is no evidence 8 in record that whether the deceased was student of science or mathematics during her studies in the high school or in the higher secondary school. There should be specific evidence with respect to the children who are being stated to be taught by deceased are of which class. In absence of specific evidence in this regard, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal erred in accepting the evidence brought on record that deceased was imparting tuition and thereby was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. 12. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a major and married woman. As such, she would be managing the household affairs as a homemaker. Considering the nature of her role, which would involve performing various domestic duties from morning till night, it cannot be said that she was not an earning member for the purpose of assessing compensation in a motor accident claim. In such cases, the notional income of a deceased homemaker is to be assessed by treating her as equivalent to an unskilled labourer and as submitted by learned counsel for respective parties that on the date of accident, the minimum wages fixed for the unskilled labour is Rs.7,930/-. In view of the aforementioned facts of the case and the discussion made the finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal with respect to the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month is not sustainable and it is hereby set-aside. 13. In view of the aforementioned discussions and the submission of learned counsel for parties that on the date of accident, the minimum wages of the unskilled labour of C-grade city is Rs.7,930/- I find it appropriate to take the income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per 9 month and thereby the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.96,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. 14. Claimant in this case is spouse of deceased and as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, standard deduction in case of death of married person is 1/3, however, perusal of the award would show that learned Claims Tribunal has made deduction of ½ towards personal living expenses, which is erroneous in the facts of the case and in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, hence, the said finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal is set-aside and it is ordered that deduction towards personal living expenses would be 1/3 instead of ½. 15. The addition of 40% towards future loss of income in the income of the deceased and application of multiplier of 18 is rightly applied by learned Claims Tribunal. Similarly, the award of Rs. 15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards consortium is rightly awarded, which does not call for any interference. 16. For the forgoing discussions the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimant/respondent No.1 required recomputation, which is as under :- SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Annual income : 8000x12 = 96,000.00 2. Addition of 40% towards future prospects : 96,000.00 + 38,400.00 = 1,34,400.00 10 3. 1/3 deduction towards personal expenses : 1,34,400.00 – 44,800.00 = 89,600.00 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 18 : 89,600 x 18 = 16,12,800.00 5. For loss of spousal consortium to applicant/claimant : 40,000.00 6. For loss of estate : 15,000.00 7. For funeral expenses : 15,000.00 : 16,82,800.00 17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Income of deceased is assessed as Rs. 8,000/- p.m. instead of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. However, as this appeal is filed by Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation and upon recomputation, after reducing income of the deceased, total compensation is enhanced, in the facts of the case, I am not inclined to enhance the compensation of Rs. 15,67,000/- because this appeal is not filed by the claimant but by the Insurance Company with a prayer for reducing the amount of compensation. Hence, in the facts of the case, the claimants are entitled for the amount of compensation as per awards passed by the Claims Tribunal. 18. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram