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

2025 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 4498

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, J
SMT. KRISHNA – Appellant
Versus
RAJKUMAR – Respondent
MAC/916/2020



Advocates:
Mr. Satyendra Shrivas, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate; Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Digitally Mr. R.N. Pusty, Advocate

The court clarified that house rent allowance must be included in salary for dependency calculations and each child is entitled to parental consortium compensation.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal for enhancement of compensation - Delay of 397 days in filing appeal condoned - Compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal was Rs.62,08,979/- for death case - Appellants sought enhancement based on deceased's salary and loss of consortium - Tribunal erred in deducting house rent allowance from salary and not awarding loss of parental consortium to children - Court held that house rent allowance must be included in salary for dependency calculation and each child entitled to parental consortium of Rs.40,000/- - Total compensation recalculated to Rs.64,80,484/- with interest @ 8% from filing date, excluding interest for delayed period. (Paras 5, 10, 21, 23)

Order On Board

24/04/2025

1. Heard on I.A. No.1, which is an application for condonation of delay of 397 days in filing the appeal.

2. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposes the application and the submission made on behalf of appellants. He however, submits that if this Court considers to condone the delay then it may be ordered that appellants will not be entitled for the interest for delayed period. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision in case of Lakkamma Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , reported in (2021) 20 SCC 797 .

3. Considering the pleadings made in the application as also the submission of learned counsel for respective parties I find it appropriate to allow the I.A. No.1, and condone the delay in filing this appeal. Accordingly, the I.A. No.1 is allowed and the delay of 397 days in filing this appeal is condoned. The appeal is admitted for hearing.

4. Learned counsel for respective parties submits that the liability to indemnify the amount of compensation is fastened upon respondent No.3/Insurance Company, hence with the consent of the parties, the case is heard finally at motion stage.

5. Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 02.03.2019 passed in Claim Case No.307/2017 thereby allowing application in part and awarded Rs.62,08,979/- as compensation in a death case.

6. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 05.04.2017 at about 12.30 o’clock at Main Road Tifra, Police Station Sirgitti, District - Bilaspur, respondent No.1 by driving the offending vehicle Swaraj Mazda (Metador) bearing registration No.C.G.-10-C/5514 in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motor cycle of Dr. B.L. Gupta due to which he suffered severe injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

7. Appellants/claimants being the legal heirs of deceased, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.2,46,70,000/- pleading therein that at the time of accident, the deceased was 54 years of age, posted as Senior Veterinary Doctor at Government Veterinary Hospital and was getting monthly salary of Rs.1,30,000/-. It was pleaded that the appellants were dependents upon the deceased. Claimants had also sought compensation under all other heads as are available to them like loss of future income, for love and affection and loss of consortium etc.

8. Respondents No.1 and 2 remained ex-parte before the Claims Tribunal.

9. Non-applicant No.3/Insurer of the offending truck denied entire allegation made in the claim application. It was pleaded that the accident occurred due to self negligence of the motorcyclist, who was driving the said motor cycle without having valid driving licence. The insurer of the motor cycle was not made as party respondents. It was further pleaded that offending vehicle was being driven in violation of insurance policy, without any permit and fitness. Application was filed exaggerating the amount of compensation. The respondent No.3 is not liable to indemnify the insured.

10. Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, the learned Claims Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non- applicant No.1, due to which deceased suffered grievous injuries and died. Breach of Policy condition was not found to be proved. Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.62,08,979/- along with interest @ 8% per annum, fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation.

11. Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in deducting the amount of Rs.24,543/- towards house rent allowance from the annul salary of the deceas

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