Vandana Mishra vs Ishatdev Kushwaha

Parth Prateem Sahu, J

As in the case at hand, liability to satisfy the amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is upon respondent No.3/Insurance Company, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally.

This is the claimants’ appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) vide award dated 12th September 2018 passed in Claim Case No.794 of 2016.

Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that applicants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the learned Second Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, pleading therein that on 14/10/2014 when Shubham Mishra along with her friend Anisha alias Anita Chauhan was coming towards Raipur on motorcycle no. CG-04 KF-0621, at about 1:30 pm in afternoon, near village Serikhedi, in front of DS Construction, non-applicant No.1 driving a Transit Mixture Vehicle no. MH-34/AB-8202 rashly and negligently dashed against the motorcycle, as a result of which, Shubham Mishra and her friend Anisha alias Anita Chauhan suffered grievous injuries. They were taken to Medical Hospital Raipur for their treatment, however, they were declared to be dead by the doctors. Shubham Mishra was a 20 years young boy at the time of the accident, who was a meritorious student pursuing his studies in B.E. (Computer Science and Engineering) Third Semester in Govt. Engineering College Bilaspur affiliated with Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai. The appellants/claimants being parents of deceased-Shubham Mishra will be surrounded by physical and financial problems throughout their lives due to the sudden death of their son in the accident. The applicants have prayed for grant of compensation of Rs. 11,00,000/- under various heads from the non-applicants.

Due to non-appearance of non-applicants 1 and 2 in the claim proceedings, they were proceeded ex-parte, no written statement has been filed by them.

Non-applicant No.3/ insurance company in its written statement denied the facts pleaded in the claim application and has further pleaded that on the date of accident, non-applicant No.1 did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive vehicle MH-34AB-8202, the conditions of the insurance policy have been violated by driving the said vehicle in the absence of permit and fitness. As there was breach of condition of insurance policy, non-applicant No.3 is not liable to pay any amount of compensation.

Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, caused accident, in which Shubham Mishra sustained grievous injuries and died. Recording a finding that breach of the conditions of insurance policy was not found proved, learned Claims Tribunal held non-applicants liable to pay amount of compensation to claimants. Learned Claims Tribunal assessing monthly income of the deceased as Rs.7500/- and calculating the loss suffered by the claimants under different heads, awarded total amount of compensation of Rs.10,01,000/ -.

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation by not considering the pleading and evidence brought on record by the claimants, in an appropriate manner. He contended that deceased Shubham Mishra was a student of B.E. Third Semester. He was a meritorious student aged about 20 years and therefore learned Tribunal ought to have assessed income of the deceased to be not less than 25,000/- per month instead of Rs.7,500/- per month as assessed by learned Tribunal. He also contended that learned Tribunal has only awarded Rs.30,000/- on other conventional heads (Rs.15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate) which is not correct in view of the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has opposed the submission of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and would submit that deceased was a student and unmarried and, therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased on notional basis as Rs.7,500/- which cannot be said to be erroneous. He further submits that learned Tribunal considering the age of deceased has added 40% towards loss of future prospects and have correctly assessed total compensation.

There is no merit in the appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal.

Undisputedly, appellants/claimants are the parents of deceased-Shubham Mishra. Deceased Shubham Mishra was a student of BE (Computer Science and Engineering) studying in Govt. Engineering College, Bilaspur. Copies of the mark-sheet of First Semester and Second Semester are enclosed as Ex.P-10-C and P-11-C respectively. From aforementioned documents, it is appearing that deceased was a student of B.E. (Computer Science and Engineering) and was pursuing his Third Semester of Bachelor of Engineer. Claimants have also brought on record mark-sheet of Higher Secondary School Examination (10 + 2) as Ex.P-8-C from perusal of which it is apparent that the deceased had obtained distinction in 4 subjects, from which it is appearing that deceased was a meritorious student. From documents enclosed along with record as evidence, it is apparent that after completion of course of Engineering, the deceased would have engaged in service with higher income than that assessed by learned Claims Tribunal as Rs.7500/- per month, which is the income of a labourer and not of an educated person pursuing graduation course in Engineering and, therefore, in the facts of the case, I find it appropriate to assess the income of deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month instead of Rs.7,500/- per month as assessed by the Tribunal.

Perusal of the impugned award shows that learned Claims Tribunal has correctly added 40% of the assessed income towards loss of future prospects and further, made deduction of 50% towards personal and living expenses from the total income of deceased as the deceased was unmarried, which is also correct in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors.

Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121. However, learned Claims Tribunal has applied multiplier of 17 instead of 18 as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra.)

Learned Claims Tribunal has only awarded Rs.30,000/- towards other conventional heads i.e. funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/- and loss of estate of Rs.15,000/- . However, learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation to claimants towards loss of consortium. The claimants being parents of the deceased are also entitled for loss of filial consortium as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (supra). It is ordered accordingly.

In the claim application though appellants/claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- only, however, the object under the Act of 1988 is to award just and proper compensation. “Just compensation” is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well-settled principles relating to award of compensation as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto alias Nemchand Mahto and Ors. (2023) 1 SCC 204 has observed that objective of granting compensation under the Act of 1988 is to ensure that just and fair compensation is paid to aggrieved party. In the said decision (Nunu Chand Mahto), Hon’ble Supreme Court considering its earlier decision in case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274, has observed that “there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation exceeding the amount so claimed. Tribunal/Court ought to award “just” compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the claim petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount”.

In the aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:-

S. N.

Heads

Compensation

1.

(A)  Loss of Income/dependency

15000 x 12 = 1,80,000

(B)  Addition  towards  future  prospects

@ 40% (180000 x 40% =72000)

180000 + 72000 = 2,52,000

Rs.  22,68,000

(C)    Deduction    of    50%       towards

personal and living expenses

(2,52,000 x 50%  =126000)

2,52,000- 126000 =   126000

(D) Multiplier of 18

126000 x 18 = 22,68,000

2.

Funeral Expenses

:

(+) Rs.    15,000

3.

Loss of Estate

:

(+) Rs.    15,000

Loss   of   Filial   Consortium   of : (+) Rs.  80,000

Rs.40,000/-   each   to   appellants/  claimants

Total compensation : Rs.   23,78,000

Now the appellants/claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs. 23,78,000/- instead of Rs.10,01,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

Aforementioned total amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.

In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein above.