1 / 2 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1145 of 2020 SHANTA SAHU versus VINAY KUMAR GUPTA Order on Board 23/04/2025 Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate for appellant. Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate for Respondent No. 3. As per office report, Respondents No. 1 & 2 are reported to be unserved mentioning “not found on given address”. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the primary liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company of the offending vehicle and it is represented through the counsel. The said finding of the Claims Tribunal is not challenged, only the cross objection has been filed challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, service of notice upon Respondent No. 1 & 2/ driver and the owner of the offending vehicle be dispensed with. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company does not oppose the submission of learned counsel 2 / 2 pwn for appellant. In view of the above submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties, service of notice upon Respondents No. 1 & 2 is dispensed with. With the consent of the parties, case is heard finally. Order passed separately. Signed and Dated. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge 1 / 8 2025:CGHC:18430 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M A C No. 1145 of 202 0 1. Shanta Sahu W/o Late Shiv Kumar Sahu Aged About 23 Years 2. Chaitram S/o Late Bhagwani Ram Sahu Aged About 50 Years 3. Sushila Sahu W/o Chaitram Sahu Aged About 47 Years 4. Ku. Vaisalya D/o Chaitram Sahu Aged About 18 Years 5. Shrawan S/o Chaitram Sahu Aged About 13 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Shanta Sahu (Appellant No. 1) 6. Ku. Dixita D/o Late Shiv Kumar Sahu, Aged About 08 Months Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Shanta Sahu (Appellant No. 1) All are R/o Baigapara, Lakholi, Ward No. 32, Rajnandgaon, P.S. City Kotwali, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants/ Claimants versus 1. Vinay Kumar Gupta S/o Ramkisun Gupta Aged About 42 Years R/o Sanjay Nagar (Lakholi), Ward No. 35 P.S. City Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 2. M/s Gangai Bus Service Bhawesh Kumar Agrawal S/o R.P. Agrawal, R/o Old Civil Line, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Village Champatola, P.S. Khadgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Owner) 3. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited Kamptee Line, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 23/04/2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 18.03.2020 passed by Learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 96/2018, whereby learned 2 / 8 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 ₹ 26,40,400/- as compensation in a death case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 08.06.2018 when Shiv Kumar Sahu along with his brother Durgesh and one another person was returning back to Rajnandgaon on his Autorickshaw CG08AE0255, reached near Chaveli Chowk, waiting for more passengers, at the same time a minibus number CG04E1651 (henceforth “offending vehicle”) coming from Rajnandgaon towards Thelkadih, driven by non- applicant No. 1 rashly and negligently suddenly applied brakes and overturned on the vehicle autorickshaw standing at the Chowk, due to which Shiv Kumar Sahu, his brother and other passengers received serious injuries. As a result of which Shiv Kumar died. The accident was reported to the Police Station Ghumka, District Rajnandgaon, based on which crime number 68/2018 was registered against non-applicant No. 1/ driver for alleged offences under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code. 3. Appellants, who are widow, parents, siblings and minor child of deceased Shiv Kumar Sahu, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking ₹ 40,00,000/- as compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was about 26 years of age, was an able bodied person. Before the accident, deceased used to run Autorickshaw by carrying passengers and goods and was earning ₹ 40,000/- per month out of which he used to pay ₹ 7500/- as installment of the autorickshaw to the finance company and after paying ₹ 10,000/- for diesel of the auto and ₹ 2500/- for its maintenance, he used to earn ₹ 20,000/- per month to support himself and his family. Due to the untimely death of the deceased in a motor vehicular 3 / 8 accident, the appellants have suffered loss of income of the deceased and they have also been deprived of the love and affection of the deceased. 4. Non-applicant No. 1 / Respondent No. 1 -Driver of the offending vehicle did not appear before the Claims Tribunal, he was proceeded ex parte. 5. Non-applicant No. 2/ Respondent No. 2-owner of offending vehicle filed his reply to the claim application denying the pleadings made in the claim application, it was further pleaded that non-applicant No. 1 driver has not caused the accident. It is further stated that on the date of the accident, non-applicant No.1 was having all the necessary documents of the vehicle and also a valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle is insured with non-applicant No. 3 and all the documents of the vehicle are valid, therefore non-applicant No. 3- Insurance Company would be liable to pay compensation, if any and pleaded for dismissal of the claim application filed by appellants against non-applicant No. 2. 6. 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 stated that insurance policy of the offending vehicle has been rejected due to lack of verification. The burden to prove the statements made regarding the date, time and place of accident, vehicle causing accident etc. is on the appellants which they failed to discharge. It is stated that the deceased driver of autorickshaw was not observing due care and caution at the time of the accident and acted negligently and recklessly, which substantially contributed to the occurrence of the accident, therefore, the principle of contributory negligence is attracted in the case. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Shiv Kumar Sahu 4 / 8 died because of injuries suffered in an accident due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant 1. Breach of conditions of the insurance policy and the contributory negligence were 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 ₹ 26,40,400/- as total compensation with interest @ 8.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company would submit that the Respondent No. 3 has also filed a cross objection challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal treating the father and siblings of deceased aged 18 years and 13 years to be dependent upon the income of deceased as applied deduction of 1/4 instead of 1/3 in the facts and circumstances of the case. He submits that in the facts of the case, widow, mother and child of deceased would only be dependent and application of deduction would be 1/3 instead of 1/4. He next contended that the income of deceased as assessed by the Claims Tribunal as ₹ 12,000/- per month is also on higher side. He submits that even if deceased was plying the passenger authoricksaw he was paying ₹ 7,500/- per month towards installment of loan against purchase of authoricksaw, therefore, the income would be less than what has been assessed by the Claims Tribunal. He would submit that on the date of accident, as per Minimum Wages Act the income of a labourer is ₹ 8320/- per month for Class- ‘A’ city and ₹ 8100/- per month for C-Class City, therefore, the income of deceased can be assessed as ₹ 8100/- per month for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. 9. Learned counsel for appellant while opposing the submission made by learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 on the cross objection, would submit that the submission of learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 with respect to 5 / 8 deduction is not correct. He submits that as the deduction is applied based on the number of claimants in the case ie., six claimants, Claims Tribunal justified in applying the deduction of 1/4 which is as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 He next contended that learned Claims Tribunal erred in not accepting the income of deceased as pleaded by the claimants in the claim application as ₹ 20,000/- per month from the business of Autorickshaw. He contended that the deceased was maintaining family of six persons from the income and at the same time from the monthly income he was paying ₹ 7,500/- towards the installment of loan of purchase of Autorickshaw, therefore, the income of deceased as pleaded in the claim application ought to have been accepted. It is next contended that the Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding compensation towards the loss of consortium to all the claimants, Claims Tribunal has awarded the compensation towards loss of consortium to appellant No.1 ie., widow. According the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 other claimants are also entitled for the compensation under the head of loss of consortium. Hence, the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 11. Sofar as the submission of learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 on cross objection with respect to application of deduction towards personal and living expenses is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) has held that, father is not dependent upon income of his son unless and until it is specifically pleaded and proved and as such the siblings of the deceased could also not be treated as dependent. In the case at hand, there 6 / 8 is no specific pleading and the evidence brought on record by the appellants that the appellant No. 2, father aged about 50 years, was for any reason dependent upon the income of deceased son. In absence of any specific pleadings and evidence, the submission of counsel for Respondent No. 3 that the Claims Tribunal erred in considering the appellant no. 2, father of deceased, to be dependent upon the income of deceased is erroneous in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Appellants No. 4 & 5 are children of appellant No. 2 and as the appellant No. 2 failed to prove that he was dependent upon the income of deceased, appellants No. 4 & 5 being children of appellant no. 2 are to be treated as dependent upon appellant no. 2 and not upon the deceased. According to the decision of Sarla Verma (supra), deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses of a married person is to be applied where claimants are 2 to 3 and deduction of 1/4 is to be applied where the claimants are 4 to 6. In the case at hand, though there are 6 claimants, however, appellant no. 2 is father of deceased and appellants no. 4 & 5 are children of appellant no. 2 and siblings of deceased Shiv Kumar. Appellant no. 2, father of appellant no. 4 & 5 is shown to be aged 50 years only and there is no specific pleadings as to how and for what reason appellants no. 2, 4 & 5 were dependent upon the income of deceased. In absence of any specific finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal, in the facts of the case, appellant no. 2- Chaitram Sahu, father of deceased, appellant no. 4-Ku. Vaisalya and appellant no. 5-Shrawan, daughter and the son of appellant no. 2, cannot be held to be dependent on the income of deceased. In the above facts of the case, this court finds number of dependents to be 3 and accordingly the application of multiplier would be 1/3 instead of 1/4. It is ordered accordingly. 12. Sofar as the next submission made by learned counsel for appellants- claimants with respect to monthly income of deceased is concerned, it is 7 / 8 considered along with the ground raised by appellants in their appeal. Claimants in the claim application have pleaded that the deceased has purchased an Autorickshaw after obtaining loan from Bajaj Auto Finance on his name and was earning livelihood by plying the passenger Autorickshaw. The fact of purchase of Autorickshaw in the name of deceased is proved by placing documents Ext. P-17, 18, 19 & 20. Ext. P-19 is the statement of loan account from where it is appearing that the deceased in his lifetime has repaid the installment of loan, a certificate is also issued in this regard by the Finance Company vide Ext. P-20. The deceased who was paying the installments of ₹ 7500/- per month has also to maintain his family and in the facts of the case, looking to the date of accident and considering the minimum wages, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of deceased from the business of plying Autorickshaw to the tune of ₹ 12,000/- to be on lower side. Considering the nature of occupation of deceased, place where he was plying the passenger Autorickshaw ie., Rajnandgaon, in the considered opinion of this Court, it cannot be expected that the deceased could have maintained books of account for his income and expenditure. Looking to the occupation of deceased in the city like Rajnandgaon, in the opinion of this Court, taking note of the date of accident, price index, cost of living and also that the deceased during his lifetime was repaying loan @ ₹ 7500/- per month, I find it appropriate to assess the income of deceased as ₹ 16,000/- per month instead of ₹ 12,000/-. 13. Claims Tribunal has rightly applied addition of 40% towards future prospects and multiplier of 17 in the facts of the case which does not call for any interference. Sofar as the award of compensation on other conventional heads is concerned, the appellants-claimants are entitled for ₹ 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, ₹ 15,000/- towards loss of estate, ₹ 40,000/- to 8 / 8 appellant no. 1 towards loss of spousal consortium, ₹ 40,000/- to appellant no. 3 towards loss of filial consortium, ₹ 40,000/- towards loss of parental consortium to appellant no. 6. 14. For the foregoing reasons, I find it appropriate to recompute the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimants which is as under. 15. Income of deceased is assessed as ₹ 16,000/- per month ie. ₹ 1,92,000/- per annum. Upon adding 40% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects, as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, yearly income of deceased on the date of accident will come to ₹ 2,68,800/-. After deducting 1/3 towards personal and living expenses, annual loss of dependency will come to ₹ 1,79,200/- and upon applying multiplier of 17 (for the age group 26-30 years) to the annual loss of dependency as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), total loss of dependency will come to ₹ 30,46,400/- [₹ 179200x17]. 16. Now the appellants-claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 31,96,400/- [₹ 30,46,400 + ₹ 40,000+ ₹ 40,000 + ₹ 40,000+ ₹15,000 + ₹15,000] instead of ₹ 26,40,400/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. Aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8.5% 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- claimants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. 17. In the result, appeal filed by appellants-claimants and the cross appeal filed by Respondent No. 3 are disposed of in the above terms. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn