SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Pat) 639

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA, J.
Chairman, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Kaushalya Devi and Ors w/o Lt. Sitaram Sah - Respondent
Miscellaneous Appeal No.712 of 2018
Decided On : 24-06-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh, Advocate, Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Surya Narayan Yadav, Advocate

The court confirmed that in compensation claims for unskilled labor, minimum wages should be utilized for calculating income when proof is absent, emphasizing methodical assessment of claimants' dependency.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal filed against the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal awarding Rs. 18,83,000/- as compensation along with 9% interest. The Tribunal calculated compensation based on income and future prospects of the deceased, alongside assessments of loss and expenses. (Paras 2-18)

(B) Determination of Compensation - The court ruled on how to calculate income for unskilled laborers, emphasizing minimum wages in absence of concrete evidence of income. Future prospects and multiplier application were also key components in determining the amount. (Paras 12-18)

Facts of the case:
The deceased, a handyman, lost his life in an accident while on duty. The appellants challenged the compensation awarded to the claimants by the learned Tribunal alleging incorrect calculation and application of law regarding income and dependence. (Paras 5-7)

Findings of Court:
The court confirmed that the accident occurred due to the employer's negligence. The amount of Rs. 18,83,000/- with interest was confirmed but recalibrated based on assessment principles for unskilled labor. (Paras 12-18)

Issues: The appeal focused on the legitimacy of the compensation calculated by the Tribunal, the income of the deceased, and whether the insurance company could challenge the award amount legally. (Paras 10-11)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that without proof of income, compensation must default to minimum wages law for unskilled laborers and outlined steps for calculating compensation considering dependent family members. (Paras 10-15)

Result: Appeal disposed of with a modification of the previously established compensation amount.

Table of Content
1. judgment details and compensation awarded. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. circumstances of the accident and claimants' assertions. (Para 5 , 6)
3. insurance company arguments on compensation calculation. (Para 9 , 10)
4. legal standards for calculating compensation. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
5. reassessment of compensation based on legal precedents. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
6. final decision on appeal and modification of prior judgment. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT :

RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 712 of 2018 has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) on behalf of the appellants/Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 28.02.2017 and 07.06.2017 passed by the learned District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Madhepura (hereinafter referred to as “Learned Tribunal”) in M.V. Claim Case No. 35 of 2011 (CIS No. 532 of 2013) wherein learned Tribunal allowed the claim application and awarded Rs. 18,83,000/- as compensation along with 9% per annum as an interest from the date of filing of the claim case till realization of the compensation amount after adjusting the amount, if already paid to the applicants as interim compensation under Section 140 of the Act.

3. The learned Tribunal held that the appellants are entitled to receive Rs. 18,83,000/- as compensation and accordingly the Reliance General Insurance Company limited / respondent no. 2 has been directed to make payment of the compensation amount as per the order forthwith, along with simple interest 9% interest per annum from the date of filling of the case.

4. The details of the calculation of compensation amount made by the learned Tribunal are as under:

Sr. No.HeadsCalculationNet Amount
1.Monthly incomeRs. 6000/-
2.Annual Income12 * 6000Rs. 72,000/-
3.1/4th deduction towards personal and living expensesRs, 18,000
4.Future prospect Deceased aged about 30 years Multiplier of 18 is applicable50% Rs. 81,000*18Rs. 81,000/- Rs.14,58,000/-
6.Los of consortiumRs. 1,00,000/-
7.Loss of EstateRs. 1,00,000/-
8.Loss of Guardianship, love and affectionRs. 1,00,000/-
9.Loss of FuneralRs. 25,000/-
10.Total amount of compensationRs.18,83,000/-

5. The brief facts of the case as per the claimants are that the deceased, Shaini Sah, was employed as a handyman (khalasi) under the Opposite Party No. 1. On 13.07.2011, while discharging his duties, he was accompanying a vehicle transporting EFSW pipes from Shivsagar to Duliaganj (Assam) via National Highway No. 37. During transit, the loaded pipes became loose and struck the driver’s cabin with considerable force, resulting in the instantaneous death of both the driver, Raj Kishore Sah @ Kumar, and the handyman, Shaini Sah, near Tiloi, close to Kali Mandir (Assam). Further, the incident was reported and registered on dated 13.07.2011 bearing Moran P.S. Case No. 318 of 2011. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted at Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh, by an Assistant Professor from the Department of Forensic Medicine. The dead body was subsequently handed over to the family members. The Motor Vehicle Inspector (MVI) from the District Transport Office, Dibrugarh, conducted an inspection on the same day and confirmed the occurrence of the accident in his report dated 13.07.2011. Additionally, the Forensic Department issued a certificate following the postmortem, and the Officer- in-Charge of Moran Police Station prepared an Accident Information Report, which recorded the particulars of the accident, vehicle involved, and identification details of the deceased.

6. Claimant No.1 (mother), Claimant No.2 (wife), Claimant No.3 and 4 (minor daughter of deceased) through their mother, and Claimant No. 5 (Father) have filed petition bearing M.V. Claim Case No. 35 of 2011 before Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Madhepura claiming that the accident took place due to rash and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top