SMT. KIRTI AGRAWAL V. SHYAM SHUKLA

MAC/1846/2019

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Smt. Kirti Agrawal and her minor son, Chetan Agrawal, against the award of compensation by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. The original tribunal awarded ₹ 15,05,000 as compensation for the death of Roshan Agrawal, who died in a motorcycle accident caused by a truck. The appellants contested the adequacy of the compensation, leading to this appeal. The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur found merit in the appellants' arguments, leading to a recalculation of the compensation based on the deceased's actual income and future prospects.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 667429 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: High Court cases
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr., Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others
• Laws Referred To: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Indian Penal Code
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ANIMESH PATHAK; SURAJ PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHITASHVA SINGH
• Keywords: Compensation; Condonation of delay; Ex-parte; Motor Accident; Negligence
• Section: 166; 140; 304(A)

Judgement Text

"1 / 3 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1846 of 2019 SMT. KIRTI AGRAWAL versus SHYAM SHUKLA Order on Board 12/06/2025 Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate for Resp. No. 3. Mr. Suraj Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Advocate for Resp. No. 4. Respondent No. 1 is reported to be unserved with a mention of “door lock” and service report of notice to Respondent No. 2 is reported to be awaited. Learned counsel for appellants submits that the Respondents No. 1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte before the Claims Tribunal, and the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is fastened upon Respondents No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally. First liability to satisfy the award is upon Resp. No. 3/ Insurance Company which is represented by their counsel, and hence, the appeal may be heard in absence of service of notice to Resp. No. 1 and 2. PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 3 Learned counsel for Resp. No. 3/ Insurance Company does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for appellants. Heard on I.A. No. 01, application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal. Learned counsel for appellants submits that he was not made aware of the passing of impugned award by the counsel contesting the case before Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saraipali, Dist. Mahasamund. The fact of passing of award by the Tribunal came into knowledge of appellants only when claim proceedings filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilapsur was dismissed mentioning that the compensation is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal, Saraipali, District Mahasamund. Copy of ordersheet dated 30.07.2019 to 27.08.2019 of the Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur are enclosed as Annexure A-2, thereby, appellants have explained the cause of delay in filing of this appeal. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants and would submit that the appellants have not disputed filing of application seeking compensation before the Tribunal at Saraipali, Mahasamund and therefore plea of no knowledge of passing of award as pleaded in the application cannot be accepted. Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons assigned in the application supported with 3 / 3 pwn affidavit, as also considering that the appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is a beneficial piece of legislation, appellants are seeking enhancement of award against the death of husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant No. 2, who was the bread-earner of the family, I am inclined to allow the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01 is allowed and the delay of 1652 days in filing appeal is hereby condoned. At this stage, learned counsel for appellants submits that as the first liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon Insurance Company which is represented by the counsel, the appeal may be heard finally at motion stage itself. Ld. counsel for Respondent No. 3 does not dispute the submission with respect to liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon Respondent No. 3. With the consent of the parties, case is heard finally at motion stage. Order passed separately. Signed and dated. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge 1 / 7 2025:CGHC:23305 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1846 of 2019 1. Smt. Kirti Agrawal W/o Late Shri Roshan Agrawal Aged About 24 Years (Actual Name Is Smt. Kriti Agrawal) 2. Chetan Agrawal S/o Late Shri Roshan Agrawal Aged About 1 Years (Actual Name Is Divy Agrawal), Minor Through His Mother Kriti Agrawal, (Actual Name Is Smt. Kriti Agrawal) All R/o Main Road Saraypali, Police Station Saraypali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Pipal Chowk Ward No. 3 Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants/ Claimants versus 1. Shyam Shukla S/o Dashrath @ Dineshwar Shukla Aged About 30 Years R/o Vishnupur Pipara, Police Station Raja Pakad District Vaishali, Bihar. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. Wb 15-A/6207), District : Vaishali, Bihar 2. Hariram Singh S/o Satyanarayan Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o 76-B.G.T. Road Bangkhal Risara Police Station Risara, District Hooghly, West Bengal, (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. WB 15-A-6207), District : Hooghly, West Bengal 3. I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vanijya Bhawan, Devendra Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of the Vehicle Truck No. WB 15-A-6207), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Smt. Raymati Devi Agrawal W/o Late Shri Dwarika Prasad Agrawal Aged About 70 Years R/o Main Road Saraypali Police Station Saraypali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant/ Applicant No.3). --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Suraj Patel, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Advocate PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 7 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 12/06/2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 07.01.2015 passed by Learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 14/2014, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 140, 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 15,05,200/- as compensation. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 11.08.2011, Roshan Agrawal was riding on a motor cycle as pillion rider driven by his friend Anand Agrawal. When they reached near Santoshi temple, non- applicant No. 1 drove the truck no. WB 15A 6207 (for short “offending truck”) rashly and negligently and dashed the motorcycle. In the said accident, both the persons riding on motor cycle died on spot. A report regarding the accident is lodged on which a criminal case No. 293/11 has been registered at Police Station Saraipali against non-applicant No. 1/ driver of offending truck for alleged offence under Section 304-A of IPC. 3. Appellants who are widow and minor child of deceased Roshan Agrawal filed an application under Section 140 and 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking ₹ 33,58,333/- as compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was about 32 years of age, was an able bodied person. At the time of the accident he was in the business of transporting work, from which he was earning about ₹ 2,50,000/- per year to maintain himself and his family. Due to untimely death of the deceased Roshan Agrawal, applicants have been deprived of his income and love and affection. 3 / 7 4. Respondent No. 1 & 2/ Non-applicant No. 1 & 2 -driver and owner of the offending truck did not appear before the Claims Tribunal, no reply has been filed on their behalf and they were proceeded ex parte. 5. Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company filed its reply, denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident, non-applicant No. 1/ driver of offending truck was not having a valid and effective driving license. The accident occurred due to collision between two vehicles, therefore the owner of the motorcycle and the insurer are necessary parties. There is contributory negligence of the deceased in the accident. The non- applicant No. 3 is not liable to satisfy the compensation. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Roshan Agrawal died in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending truck by non-applicant 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy, contributory negligence and non-joinder of parties were not found to be proved, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 15,05,000/- as total compensation with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 7. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre amount of compensation. Appellants who are the widow and child of the deceased has filed an application seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal only on the ground that the Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as ₹ 1,20,000/- p.a. only overlooking the income as mentioned in the acknowledgment of the income tax returns enclosed by the appellants as Ext. P-9c and 10c of the assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12. He next 4 / 7 contended that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards future prospects. Deceased on the date of accident was less than 40 years of age and therefore there shall be addition of 40% of the assessed income towards loss of future prospects. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants-claimants and further submits that the Claims Tribunal has assigned reasons for not accepting the income of deceased from other sources including horse race. He also contended that the excessive amount of compensation is awarded under the head of loss of consortium and future prospects by the Claims Tribunal. 9. Learned counsel for Resp. No. 4 supports the contention of learned counsel for appellants-claimants. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 11. Sofar as the first ground raised by learned counsel for appellants-claimants with respect to assessment of income of deceased, perusal of record would show that in support of pleadings made with respect to income of deceased, appellants-claimants have submitted income tax returns acknowledgment of the year 2010-11 as Ext. P-9c. In the said document, total income of deceased under the head of net profit is ₹ 1,19,200/- and further aggregate income is shown as ₹ 1,44,500/-. In the column of income from other sources it is mentioned that the income from sources other than from owning race horses of ₹ 25,300/-. Claimants have further filed Income tax returns of assessment year 2011-12 as Ext. P-10c, in which income from Business is mentioned as Rs. 1,20,000/-, income from other sources is ₹ 28,950/- making gross income as ₹ 1,48,950/-. This income tax return was submitted on 30.07.2011, whereas the date of accident is 11.08.2011. 5 / 7 12. From perusal of documents and considering the date of accident, it is appearing that the deceased submitted the income tax returns prior to date of accident, he could not be supposed to apprehend mishappening of accident and therefore it cannot be said that the income tax returns showing excessive income is filed only to obtain undue advantage of seeking excessive compensation. Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of ₹ 1,20,000/- p.a. only and has not considered the income from other sources for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation which in the opinion of this court is erroneous. When the assessee has disclosed his income to the income tax department from all sources as mentioned in the income tax returns, it is for the courts or the Tribunals to consider the income as disclosed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the competent authority for the purpose of calculating the compensation. For the foregoing discussion, I find it appropriate to assess the income of deceased as ₹ 1,48,950/- p.a. It is ordered accordingly. 13. The deceased on the date of accident as held by the Claims Tribunal, based on the documents produced before it, was aged about 32 years. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has considered the issue with respect to award of compensation under the loss of future prospects and has held that in case where the deceased was less than 40 years, there shall be addition of 40% of the assessed income to the income of deceased. Accordingly, there shall be addition of 40% of the assessed income, for computing the total yearly income of the deceased. Claims Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3 towards personal and living expenses and has applied multiplier of 16 which is in consonance of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Tribunal has awarded ₹ 1 Lakh towards loss of spousal consortium to appellant No. 1 and ₹ 1 Lakh towards loss of 6 / 7 parental and filial consortium to appellant no. 2, child of deceased and Respondent No. 4, mother of deceased. Award of compensation towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses, in the opinion of this Court appears to be on higher side in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. Award of compensation should be just and fair and not as bonanza. 14. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires recomputation, which is as under. 15. The annual income of deceased is taken as ₹ 1,48,950/-. Upon adding 40% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects, yearly income of deceased on the date of accident will come to ₹ 2,08,530/-. After deducting 1/3 towards personal and living expenses, annual loss of dependency will come to ₹ 1,39,020/-. Upon applying multiplier of 16 to the annual loss of dependency as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) as the deceased was about 32 years of age on the date of accident, total loss of dependency will come to ₹ 22,24,320/-. Besides the amount of compensation towards loss of dependency, appellants- claimants shall further be entitled for ₹ 40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium to appellant No. 1, ₹ 40,000/- towards loss of parental consortium to appellant No. 2, ₹ 40,000/- to Respondent No. 4 towards loss of filial consortium, ₹ 15,000/- towards loss of estate and ₹ 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Particulars Compensation A) Annual Loss of income/ dependency = ₹ 1,48,950/- B) Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 40% (₹ 1,48,950 x 40% = ₹ 59,580) ₹ 1,48,950 + ₹ 59,580= ₹ 2,08,530/- C) Deduction of 1/3 towards personal and ₹ 22,24,320/- 7 / 7 living expenses (2,08,530 x 1/3= ₹ 59,510); ₹ 2,08,530 - ₹ 59,510 = ₹ 1,39,020/- D) Multiplier of 16 ₹ 1,39,020 x 16 = ₹ 22,24,320/- Spousal Consortium to appellant No. 1 ₹ 40,000/- Parental Consortium to appellant No. 2 ₹ 40,000/- Filial Consortium to Respondent No. 4 ₹ 40,000/- Loss of estate ₹ 15,000/- Funeral Expenses ₹ 15,000/- Total ₹ 23,74,320/- 16. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 23,74,320/- instead of ₹ 15,05,000/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount paid to the appellant pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 17. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn "