AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 24.09.2025, passed in Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Case No.-38/2024, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.24,26,660/- as compensation for the death of Late Jivrakhan Manhare, aged about 33 years, who died in a road accident which took place on 25.11.2023.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed error of law in assessing the monthly income of the deceased. Learned counsel further submits that the income of the deceased has been duly established by examining Murli Baghel (AW-2) who had produced attendance register (Ex.P/C-35), according to which, the deceased was earning Rs.700/- per day and Rs. 21,000/- per month, however, the learned Tribunal, discarding the evidence of Murli Baghel (AW-2), only assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,100/- in view of Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for unskilled labour, which is not justified. He further submits that under the conventional heads also the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded meager compensation, which needs to be enhanced suitably.
None for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company opposing the submission of learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal, in para 21 and 22 of the impugned award, has rightly considered the admissions made by Murli Baghel (AW-2) in his cross-examination. In view of the material admissions elicited during cross-examination, his testimony does not inspire confidence and, therefore, no reliance can be placed upon his statement. The learned Tribunal has, thus, rightly discarded his evidence while appreciating the case of the claimants to the extent of monthly income. He further submits that the Claims Tribunal after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record has rightly awarded the compensation amount. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no interference.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.
Having regard to the overall material evidence available on record, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,100/- per month by treating him as an unskilled labourer as on the date of the accident, i.e., 25.11.2023. However, considering the nature of work and the material brought on record, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.11,530/- in view of Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for skilled labour. Accordingly, his monthly income is determined at Rs.11,530/- as applicable to a skilled labourer on the date of the accident. Therefore, to that extent the impugned award needs to be modified.
The learned claims Tribunal, considering the nature of job of deceased at the time of accident 25.11.2023, the fact that he was aged 33 years, and number of dependents (06), has rightly taken future prospect of 40%, deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of 16. Further, considering the period of hospitalization of the deceased for one month, the Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of ₹1,20,500/- towards medical and incidental expenses. However, the amounts awarded under the conventional heads, namely, Rs.2,70,000/- towards consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/-towards loss of estate do not appear to be just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case, which requires to be enhanced suitably.
Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors3, this Court is computing the compensation as below:-
| Sr. No. | Heads | Compensation awarded by this Court |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Income | Rs. 11,530 x12 = 1,38,360/- |
| 2. | Future prospect | (+)40% (i.e. Rs.55,344) = 1,93,704/- |
| 3. | Deduction | (-) 1/4 (i.e.48,426) = 1,45,278/- |
| 4. | Multiplier | (x) 16 = Rs.23,24,448/- |
| 5. | Towards Loss of consortium to all 06 claimants | Rs. 48,000 x 6 = Rs.2,88,000/- |
| 6. | Towards Loss of Estate | Rs.18,000/- |
| 7. | Towards funeral expenses | Rs.18,000/- |
| 8. | Towards medical expenses as granted by Tribunal. | Rs.1,20,500/- |
| Total | Rs.27,68,948/- |
In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.24,26,660/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.27,68,948/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.24,26,660/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.3,42,288/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application before the Claims Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.
The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the concerned Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants resides.