1 / 2 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1191 of 2020 DINESH KUMAR VERMA versus AKBAR KHAN Order on Board 02/04/2025 Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate for Appellants. Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrwal, Advocate for Resp. No. 2. None appeared for Resp. No. 1, though served. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2020, application for condonation of delay of 235 days in filing the appeal. The grounds pleaded in the application and the submission made by learned counsel for appellants are opposed by learned counsel for Respondent No. 2. On due consideration of the submission of learned counsel for respective parties and the pleadings made in the application, I.A. No. 01/2020 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Appeal is admitted for hearing. PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 2 pwn Learned counsel for respective parties submits that the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is fastened upon Respondent No. 2/ Insurance Company, which is not disputed. With the consent of the parties, case is heard finally. Order passed separately. Signed and dated. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge 1 / 7 2025:CGHC:15412 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M A C No. 1191 of 202 0 1. Dinesh Kumar Verma S/o Dwarika Prasad Verma Aged About 49 Years Resident of Labour Camp, Jamul, Police Station Jamul, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2. Indu Verma D/o Dinesh Kumar Verma Aged About 27 Years Resident of Labour Camp, Jamul, Police Station Jamul, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3. Priya Verma D/o Dinesh Kumar Verma Aged About 23 Years Resident of Labour Camp, Jamul, Police Station Jamul, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4. Subhash Verma S/o Dinesh Kumar Verma Aged About 21 Years Resident of Labour Camp, Jamul, Police Station Jamul, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants/ Claimants versus 1. Akbar Khan S/o Hanif Khan Aged About 63 Years Resident Of Ward No. 35, Near Vidya Niketan School, Durga Nagar , Birgaon, Police Station Urla, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner and Driver of Truck No. C.G. 04 JD 4486), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The New India Insurance Company Limited Through The Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Near Bajrang Hotel, G.E. Road , Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of Truck No. C.G. 04- JD - 4486), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Ms. Prachi Singh, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Resp. No. 2 : Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 02/04/2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 25.01.2020 passed by Learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the Second Additional PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 7 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 257/2019, whereby learned 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 ₹ 9,10,000/- as compensation in death case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 07.02.2019 when Rajkumari Verma, along with her husband and her mother Jamuna Verma were coming from Ghorbatti to Rameshwar Nagar, Bhanpuri, Raipur, reached near Dharmkanta, Bilaspur at Raipur Main Road Chowk under Police Station Khamtarai, non-applicant No. 1 driving his truck number CG04-JD-4486 (henceforth “offending vehicle”) rashly and negligently, hit the motorcycle and caused an accident. As a result of the said accident, Rajkumari Verma and Jamuna Verma, who were riding the motorcycle, received grievous injuries and died on the spot. The accident was reported to Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur, on which a crime was registered against non-applicant No. 1 under sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC. 3. Appellants, husband and children of deceased Rajkumari, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking ₹ 22,00,000/- as compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was about 44 years of age, was an able bodied person. At the time of the accident, the deceased was employed with Plywood Company, Cantonment Bhilai, District Durg, working as an Accountant and earning 9,000/- per month and maintaining ₹ herself and her family. 4. Non-applicant No. 1/ Respondent No. 1-Driver and owner of offending vehicle submitted his reply and denied all the adverse pleadings made in the application. It was further stated that on the date of incident non-applicant No. 1 was driving the offending vehicle carefully. There is no negligence of any kind on the part of non-applicant No. 1, accident occurred due to 3 / 7 negligence on the part of appellant No. 1 as appellant No. 1-Dinesh Kumar Verma came driving his motorcycle no. CG07-AD-0885 with more passengers than its seating capacity and stumbled due to which both the women sitting on his motorcycle fell in front of rear wheel of the offending vehicle, due to which the accident occurred. It is stated that the owner of motorcycle driven by appellant No. 1 and its Insurance Company are also necessary parties in this case, but they have not been made parties. It is further stated that on the date of the incident, non-applicant No. 1 had a valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle. The said vehicle was insured with non-applicant No. 2/ Insurance company, in such a situation, the responsibility of paying compensation lies with non- applicant No. 2- Insurance company and prayed that the claim filed against non-applicant No. 1 be dismissed. 5. Non-applicant No. 2/ Resp. No. 2-Insurance Company in its reply, apart from accepting the undisputed facts, has denied the pleadings made in the application and further stated that in the said accident two vehicles were involved, three persons were riding on the motorcycle along with deceased, there was contributory negligence and violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. The driver, owner and insurance company of the said motorcycle are necessary parties in this case, who were not made parties and hence the claim is liable to be dismissed due to non-joining of the necessary parties. On the date of the accident, non-applicant No. 1 did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle and the said vehicle was being driven without valid fitness or permit. Thus, the Insurance Company is not liable for compensation as on the date of the incident the offending vehicle was driven in violation of conditions of insurance policy and prayed for dismissal of the claim filed against it. 4 / 7 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Rajkumari Verma 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 were not found to be proved. Tribunal holding the non-applicant No. 2/ Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation amount, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 9,10,000/- as total compensation with interest @ 7.5% 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 ₹ 9,10,000/-. She contended that learned Claims Tribunal disbelieved the occupation and income of deceased pleaded and stated by the appellants-claimants and has erroneously taken income as 6,000/- per month treating her to be an unskilled labourer. She ₹ contended that at the time of accident, the deceased was employed with Plywood Company, Cantonment Bhilai, District Durg, working as an Accountant and earning ₹ 9,000/- per month, therefore, the income as pleaded in the application ought to have been taken for calculating amount of compensation. She contended that even if the occupation and income of deceased is not proved in accordance with law, then learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken the wages as prevailing on the date of accident in terms of notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. It is next contended that learned Claims Tribunal has erroneously awarded 70,000/- for other conventional heads including funeral expenses ₹ however not awarded any amount of compensation to the appellants towards consortium who are husband and children of the deceased as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company 5 / 7 vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. Hence, the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 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 of deceased 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 is concerned, accident was of 07.02.2019, occupation of deceased is pleaded as Accountant in a private company. True it is that the appellants-claimants failed to produce any admissible piece of evidence such as salary slip, appointment letter or other document(s) 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 unskilled 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 from 01.10.2018 to 31.10.2019. The monthly wages fixed by the competent authority for ‘B’ Category City (Bhilai city) is ₹ 8,060/- 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 6 / 7 to assess income of deceased as ₹ 8,060/- per month instead of ₹ 6,000/- per month as assessed by the Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. 11. In the case at hand, deceased was 45 years of age on the date of accident as held by Tribunal, hence, there will be addition of 25% 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 National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 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 4 dependents, however learned Claims Tribunal has applied multiplier of 1/3 as the appellants No. 2 & 3 are married daughters of deceased and they were held to be non-dependent upon the deceased. Accordingly, deduction of 1/3 of the income of deceased towards personal and living expenses has been applied by the Tribunal which cannot be said to be erroneous. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a lumpsum amount of ₹ 70,000/- towards other conventional heads and erroneously not awarded any amount to each appellant towards consortium who are husband and children of deceased which needs to be enhanced in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nanu Ram (supra). 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). 12. For the foregoing reasons, I find it appropriate to recompute the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimants as under. 7 / 7 13. Income of deceased is assessed as ₹ 8,060/- per month ie. ₹ 96,720/- per annum. Upon adding 25% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects, yearly income of deceased on the date of accident will come to ₹ 1,20,900/-. After deducting 1/3 towards personal and living expenses, annual loss of dependency will come to ₹ 80,600/-. Upon applying multiplier of 14 (for the age group 41 to 45) to the annual loss of dependency as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) as the deceased was below 45 years of age on the date of accident, total loss of dependency will come to ₹ 11,28,400/- [ ₹ 80,600x14]. Besides the amount of compensation towards loss of dependency, appellants-claimants shall further be entitled for ₹ 40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium to appellant No. 1, ₹ 40,000/- each to appellants No. 2 to 4 towards loss of parental consortium, ₹ 15,000/- towards loss of estate and ₹ 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. 14. Now the appellants-claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 13,18,400/- [₹ 11,28,400 + ₹ 40,000 + ₹ 40,000 + ₹ 40,000 + ₹ 40,000 + ₹15,000 + ₹15,000] instead of ₹ 9,10,000/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. Aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% 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