1 / 2 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 491 of 2020 SAVITA BANJARE versus BHAGWAT PRASAD KASHYAP Order on Board 24/03/2025 Mr. C.K. Sahu, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate for Resp. No. 3. None appeared for Resp. No. 1, though served. As per office report, notice sent to Resp. No. 2 is reported to be unserved with a note “Not Found”. Learned counsel for the respective parties submit that the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is fasten upon the Insurance Company, which is not disputed. In the aforementioned facts of the case, service of notice upon Resp. No. 2 is dispensed with. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2020, application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Learned counsel for Resp. No. 3 vehemently opposed the submission made by learned counsel for appellants and pleadings made in the said application and would further submit PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 2 pwn that there is no satisfactory explanation offered for inordinate delay of 1170 days in filing this appeal. Learned counsel for appellants submits that the appellants are legal representatives of the deceased, who was the breadwinner of the family, are poor persons, they were not aware of the award passed by the Claims Tribunal and when after some time they approached the counsel they were informed about passing of award by the Claims Tribunal. Thereafter, after obtaining certified copy of the order/award they have filed this appeal. There is no willful act of appellants in causing delay for filing this appeal, hence, the delay be condoned. On due consideration of the submission made by learned counsel for the 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. With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally. Order passed separately. Signed and dated. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge 1 / 7 2025:CGHC:13984 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M A C No. 491 of 202 0 1. Savita Banjare W/o Late Surendra Kumar Banjare Aged About 22 Years Caste Satnami R/o Village Dharampura, Police Station Jarhagaon, Tahsil Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 2. Ku. Anushka Banjare Daughter Of Late Surendra Kumar Banjare , Aged About 14 Month , Caste Satnami Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Namely Savita Banjare, Wife Of Late Surendra Banjare , Resident Of Village Dharampura, Police Station Jarhagaon, Tahsil Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants/ Claimants versus 1. Bhagwat Prasad Kashyap S/o Bharat Lal Kashyap Aged About 24 Years Resident Of Jarhagaon, Police Station Jarhagaon, Tahsil Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh . (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Bolero Bearing Registration No. C.G. 10F / 0209), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2. Rudra Pratap Singh S/o Ramnaresh Singh Resident Of 27 Kholi, Vikas Nagar, Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Bolero Bearing Registration No. C.G. 10F / 0209), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Third Floor Gurukripa Towers Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Bolero Bearing Registration No. C.G. 10F / 0209), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. C.K. Sahu, Advocate For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 24/03/2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 23.08.2016 passed by Learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District Mungeli, PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 7 Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 45/2014, 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 Rs. 6,48,500/- as compensation in death case. 2. Fact of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 13.12.2013, Surendra Kumar Banjare along with his driver Kumar Kashyap was returning from Mungeli to Dharampura on Hero Honda Passion Plus No. CG 10 FJ 8202 after buying tractor parts. He stopped to urinate after parking his motorcycle on the roadside near Collector Bungalow, Karahi. Non-applicant no. 1- driver, driving his vehicle Bolero CG 10 FA 0209 rashly and negligently, hit Surendra Banjare and Kumar Kashyap. Injured Surendra and Kumar Kashyap were brought to Primary Health Center Mungeli and were referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur. Injured Surendra Banjare was admitted to Care and Cure Hospital due to serious injuries. During treatment, Surendra died on 26.12.2013. 3. Appellants, widow and child of deceased Surendra, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs. 20,50,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was about 30 years of age, was an able bodied person was working as Contractor and earning Rs. 4 Lakh to 5 Lakh per annum. 4. Non-applicant 1 & 2/ Respondent No. 1 & 2- driver and owner filed their reply and have denied the pleadings made in the application. It was further pleaded that the non-applicant-driver of the vehicle had a valid and effective license on the date of the incident and the said vehicle was insured with non- applicant No. 3 for the entire risk of the incident. Non-applicant No. 1 and 2 have not violated any of the conditions of the insurance policy, and pleaded that in such a situation the liability to pay compensation lies with the 3 / 7 insurance company. Therefore, the claim of the applicants against Non- applicants No. 1 & 2 be dismissed. 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 stated that the FIR lodged in the above case has been lodged against an unknown vehicle, hence the accident did not happen with this vehicle and it has not been proved, therefore the insurance company is not liable for any compensation. No proof with regard to deceased being a Contractor and his income has been brought on record. The insurance company of the motorcycle on which the deceased was riding has not been made a party. In the absence of a proper party, the case is not maintainable. The accident happened due to the negligence of the deceased himself and pleaded for dismissal of claim filed against it. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Surendra Kumar Banjare died because of the 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-applicants jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation, holding the Insurance Company primarily liable, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded Rs. 6,48,500/- as total compensation with interest @ 6% 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. He contended that learned Claims Tribunal overlooked the nature of occupation and income of deceased pleaded and stated by the witnesses in their evidence before the Tribunal without assigning any reason. Deceased was working as Contractor and 4 / 7 there is specific statement that he was earning Rs. 4 Lakh to 5 Lakh per annum. He also contended that Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects and further that the compensation awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses is also on lower side which may be suitably enhanced. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent 3-Insurance Company would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellants. However, he has not disputed the submission of learned counsel for appellants that the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon the Insurance Company ie., Respondent No. 3. He contended that appellants failed to prove the nature of occupationa and income of deceased by bringing on record admissible piece of evidence and in absence of proof of occupation as also the income of deceased, learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in assessing the income on notional basis as Rs. 4,000/- per month. Claims Tribunal has already awarded higher amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards love and affected for appellants. Hence, 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 of claim case. 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 13.12.2013 occupation of deceased is pleaded as Contractor. True it is that the appellants-claimants failed to produce any admissible piece of evidence to prove income of deceased and that the deceased was given any contract for which he was earning Rs. 4-5 Lakh per annum. No independent witness has been examined by the appellants but for the appellant No. 1-widow of deceased, herself examined as AW-1. In the aforementioned facts of the 5 / 7 case the view taken by the Claims Tribunal that the appellants-claimants failed to prove nature of occupation as also income of deceased not found to be proved cannot be said to be erroneous, hence, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the said finding. The ground raised by learned counsel for appellants in this regard is repelled. 11. With regard to assessment of income of deceased by the Claims Tribunal as Rs. 4,000/- per month is concerned, undisputedly the deceased is a married able bodied person, aged about 30 years, 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. Therefore, in absence of proof of income, in the opinion of this Court, it will be just and proper to take help of the minimum waged fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the unskilled labourer during the period from 01.10.2013 to 31.03.2014. Accident occurred in the year 2013. The minimum monthly wages fixed by the competent authority is Rs. 5163/- per month. Upon taking into consideration the aforementioned factors, particularly the date of accident, age of deceased and nature of occupation as pleaded and stated by claimants in their evidence, I do not have hesitation to assess income of deceased as Rs. 5163/- per month instead of Rs. 4000/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 12. In the case at hand, deceased was 30 years of age on the date of accident as held by Tribunal, hence, there will be addition of 40% of established income in the income of deceased for future prospects 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 6 / 7 expenses based on number of dependents upon deceased and held that where the dependents are 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 Magma General Insurance Company v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 13. For the foregoing reasons, I find it appropriate to recompute the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimants as under. 14. Income of deceased is assessed as Rs. 5163/- per month ie. Rs. 61,956/- per annum. Upon adding 40% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects, yearly income of deceased on the date of accident will come to Rs. 86,738/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses, annual loss of dependency will come to Rs.57,825/-. Upon applying multiplier of 17 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 about 30 years of age on the date of accident, total loss of dependency will come to Rs. 9,83,025/- [Rs.57825x17]. 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, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. 15. Now the appellants-claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of Rs. 10,93,025/- [Rs.9,83,025 + Rs.40,000+ Rs.40,000+ Rs.15,000+ Rs.15,000] instead of Rs.6,48,500/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. Aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the 7 / 7 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 order shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. 16. 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