Smt. Sunaina Yadav vs Jeesan Khan

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 28.01.2021, passed in Claim Case No. 63/2017, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded in favour of appellant & respondent No. 4 a total sum of Rs.14,02,800/- as compensation for the death of Pardesh Ram Yadav (28-years-old) who died in a road accident which took place on 08.06.2017.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased, Pardesh Ram Yadav, was working as a mason; therefore, the income assessed by the Claims Tribunal at Rs. 7,000/- per month is on the lower side, as on the date of the accident, the minimum wages of the unskilled labourer were Rs. 7,930/-. Hence, the appeal be allowed, and the award passed by the Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced. It is also submitted that in the case in hand there is a breach of policy as the driver of the offending vehicle does not possess valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident, therefore, the insurance company has been exonerated by claims tribunal, but on the date of accident, the vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company, therefore, the principle of ‘pay and recover’ may be applied in the case.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 would submit that the Claims Tribunal after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record 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.

In the case at hand, the learned Tribunal has indeed taken the deceased's monthly income to be Rs. 7,000/-. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was a mason, aged about 28 years and was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month, but they could not produce any documentary proof to substantiate their claim; therefore, it would be proper to take his monthly income of Rs.7,930/- as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for unskilled labour. Furthermore, Rs. 40,000/-has been granted towards loss of consortium to wife of the deceased, whereas, the father of the deceased (respondent No. 4) is also entitled to Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Therefore, to that extent the impugned award needs to be modified.

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 Sethi^{11.(2017) 16 SCC 680}, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors^{22.(2009) 6 SCC 121} and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors^{33.(2018) 18 SCC 130}, this Court is computing the compensation as below:-

In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.14,02,800/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.16,19,872/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.14,02,800/-, the claimant/appellant & respondent No. 4 are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.2,17,072/-. 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.

So far as the prayer to apply the principle of ‘pay and recover’ is concerned, it is clear from the evidence that though at the time of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle had not possessed a valid and effective driving license, but the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company. Therefore, considering the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh and Another Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558, and in the case of Sunita and Ors. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Ors., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1464, it is directed that the insurance company shall first pay the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant & respondent No. 4 and then recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.

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.