1

2026:CGHC:26430

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MAC No. 213 of 2022

Order Reserved on 01.05.2026

Order Pronounced on 29.06.2026

Order (Full) Uploaded on 29.06.2026

1 - Gopi Sahni S/o Prabhulal Sahni Aged About 45 Years R/o Prabhu

Band Party, Main Road, Tahsil And Ps- Arang, District Raipur

Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle No. Cg 04 B 6827-Tata Sumo)

2 - Govind Sahni S/o Prabhulal Sahni Aged About 48 Years R/o Prabhu

Band Party, Main Road, Tahsil And Ps- Arang, District Raipur

Chhattisgarh. (Registered Owner Of Vehicle No. Cg 04 B 6827-Tata

Sumo)

--- Appellants

versus

1 - Ranjit Bhunjia S/o Late Sacharu Bhunjia Aged About 61 Years R/o

Village Jhara, Ps Khallari, Tahsil And District Mahasamund,

Chhattisgarh (Claimant)

2

2 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd Madina Building, Jail Road

Raipur, District-Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Insurance Company For The

Vehicle No. Cg 04 B 6827 - Tata Sumo)

--- Respondents

MAC No. 210 of 2022

1 - Gopi Sahni S/o Prabhulal Sahni Aged About 45 Years Currently R/o

Prabhu Band Party, Main Road, Tahsil And Police Station Arang, District

Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle No. Cg 04 B 6827- Tata Sumo),

District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Govind Sahni S/o Prabhulal Sahni Aged About 48 Years Currently

R/o Prabhu Band Party, Main Road, Tahsil And Police Station Arang,

District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Registered Owner Of Vehicle No. Cg 04

B 6827- Tata Sumo), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

--- Appellants

versus

1 - Smt. Malti Bhunjia W/o Late Panchram Bhunjia Aged About 29

Years Currently R/o Village Pali, Soramsindhi Road, Police Station

Khallari, Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (Claimant),

District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

2 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Madina Building, Jail

Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company For

The Vehicle No. Cg 04 B 6827- Tata Sumo), District : Raipur,

Chhattisgarh

--- Respondents

MAC No. 221 of 2022

1 - Gopi Sahni S/o Prabhulal Sahni, Aged About 45 Years R/o Prabhau

Band Party, Main Road, Tahsil And Ps Arang, District Raipur

Chhattisgarh.

3

2 - Govind Sahni, S/o Prabhulal Sahni, Aged About 48 Years R/o

Prabhu Band Party, Main Road, Tahsil And Ps Arang, District Raipur

Chhattisgarh. (Registered Owner Of Vehicle No. Cg 04 B 6827 Tata

Sumo)

--- Appellants

versus

1 - Smt. Malti Bhunjia W/o Late Panchram Bhunjia, R/o Village Pali,

Soram Sindhi Road, Ps Khallari, Tahsil And District Mahasamund,

Chhattisgarh.

2 - Ku, Tarini D/o Late Panchram Bhunjia, Aged About 11 Years

(Through Mother Smt. Malti Bhunjia) R/o Village Pali, Soram Sindhi

Road, Ps Khallari, Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

3 - Ku. Bhumika, D/o Late Panchram Bhunjia, Aged About 10 Years

(Through Mother Smt. Malti Bhunjia) R/o Village Pali, Soram Sindhi

Road, Ps Khallari, Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

4 - Kumar Singh Bhunjia S/o Kaliram Aged About 53 Years R/o Village

Pali, Soram Sindhi Road, Ps Khallari, Tahsil And District Mahasamund,

Chhattisgarh.

5 - Kumari Bai W/o Kumar Singh Bhunjia, Aged About 48 Years R/o

Village Pali, Soram Sindhi Road, Ps Khallari, Tahsil And District

Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

6 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Madina Building, Jail Road,

Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company For The

Vehicle No. Cg 04 B 6827 Tata Sumo)

--- Respondents

4

For Appellants/Driver & Owner :Shri Khulesh Sahu and

Ms. Poulami Das, Advocates

For Respondent(s)/Claimant(s) :Shri Jameel Akhtar Lohani,

Advocate

For Respondent/Insurance

Company

:Shri Raghvendra Verma,

Advocate on behalf of Shri

Deepak Gupta, Advocate

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

C A V Order

1.Since an identical issue is involved in the present appeals, they

are being heard and decided by this common order.

2.Cross objections filed in the present appeals are also being

heard and decided by this common order.

3.The parties are herein referred to as driver, owner, claimant(s)

and insurance company/insurer.

Brief Facts

4.Briefly stated the facts are that the appellants are the driver and

owner of a vehicle namely Tata Sumo bearing registration No.CG

04 B 6827. On 19.4.2019 at 10 p.m., the offending vehicle

dashed to one motorcycle bearing registration No.CG 06 GL

1854 which was carrying 3 persons. As a result of the said

5

accident, one of the riders, namely, Panchram Bhunjiya died on

the spot. Other riders, namely, Bisnath Bhunjiya and Ranjit

Bhunjiya were being taken to Government Hospital,

Mahasamund by a 112 Ambulance. On the way, Bisnath

Bhunjiya died and Ranjit Bhunjiya, who sustained grievous

injuries, was admitted in the Government Hospital,

Mahasamund. Thereafter, he was treated in different hospitals.

He sustained amputation above the knee near the thigh. 3

different claim applications under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) were filed. Claim Case

No.H-94 of 2019 was registered on the application so filed by

claimant Ranjit Bhunjiya seeking compensation for the injuries

caused to him in the accident. Claim Case No.H-95 of 2019 was

registered on the application of claimant Smt. Malti Bhunjiya

seeking compensation on account of death of Bisnath Bhunjiya

in the said accident. Whereas, Claim Case No.H-96 of 2019 was

registered on the application of claimants Smt. Malti Bhunjiya

and others seeking compensation on account of death of

Panchram Bhunjiya in the said accident.

5.The claim applications filed by the claimants were resisted by

the driver, owner and insurance company on various grounds.

The driver and owner while resisting the claim applications,

pleaded that the driver had a valid and effective driving licence

to drive the offending vehicle. The owner has given an amount

of Rs.9,370 to the agent of the insurance company, namely,

Alok Shukla at 16:00 hours (4:00 p.m.) on 19.4.2019 to get the

offending vehicle insured from the insurance company. The said

6

amount of premium was transferred in the account of the

insurance company by the agent Alok Shukla at 16:35 hours

(4:35 p.m). However, Alok Shukla did not provide the insurance

policy. While the policy was received by the owner on the next

day, he came to know that the policy was issued with effect

from 20.4.2019 to 19.4.2020 after a day of the receipt of the

premium. The owner contacted the manager of the insurance

company and complained in writing on 24.4.2019. However, no

correction in the insurance policy was made. Further case of the

owner and driver is that as the insurance premium was received

by the insurance company through its agent at 16:35 hours

(4:35 p.m) on 19.4.2019. Thus, to pay the compensation, the

insurance company is liable. Other defence with regard to

contributory negligence was also taken.

6.The insurance company by filing its written statement before the

Claims Tribunal pleaded that as per the insurance policy

No.4601003118024441065. The offending vehicle was earlier

insured from 17.4.2018 to 16.4.2019. Thereafter, vide policy

No.46010031190200000658 the insurance of the offending

vehicle is valid with effect from 20.4.2019 to 19.4.2020. Thus, it

is pleaded that on the date of accident, i.e., 19.4.2019 the

offending vehicle was not insured with the insurance company.

Apart from this, it was also pleaded that in the charge sheet

filed against the driver, apart from the offences under the IPC,

the offence under Section 146/196 of the MV Act was levelled,

which goes to show that on the date of accident the offending

vehicle was not insured with the insurance company.

7

7.On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Claims Tribunal

framed issues.

8.The claimants, driver, owner and the insurance company

examined their witnesses to prove their respective pleadings.

9.The learned Claims Tribunal decided the issues in favour of the

claimants, however, while deciding issue No.3 observed that

driver and owner are liable to pay compensation. In issue No.6

with respect to violation of terms and conditions of the

insurance policy, the Claims Tribunal observed that the

offending vehicle was not insured. Thus, there is no question of

violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The

Claims Tribunal awarded the following compensation vide award

dated 2.11.2021:

Sl.

No.

Claim Case

No.

Compensation

Awarded

(Rs.)

Injury or

Death Case

Concerned

MAC No.

1H-94 of 2019 96,400 Injury Case

of the

Claimant

213 of 2022

2H-95 of 2019 2,18,200 On account

of death of

Bisnath

Bhunjiya

210 of 2022

3H-96 of 2019 10,73,900 On account

of death of

Panchram

Bhunjiya

221 of 2022

8

Submissions on behalf of Appellants

10.Shri Khulesh Sahu and Ms. Poulami Das, learned counsel

appearing for the appellants/driver and owner of the offending

vehicle submit that the accident had occurred on 19.4.2019 at

about 10 p.m. prior to that the owner of the offending vehicle

has already given the premium of insurance policy to the agent

of the insurance company on 19.4.2019 at about 16:00 hours

(4:00 p.m.) which was then transferred in the account of the

insurance company at 16:35 hours (4:35 p.m.). Thus, the

insurance company has already received the premium and mala

fidely issued the policy on the next date, i.e., 20.4.2019.

Immediately on coming to know about this, a written complaint

was made by the appellant to the manager of the insurance

company, however, no correction was made in the insurance

policy. Learned counsel submit that in order to prove the same,

the agent of the insurance company was also examined, who, in

his evidence, fortified the fact of receiving the premium from

the owner at 16:00 hours (4:00 p.m.) and transferring the same

in the account of the insurance company at 16:35 hours (4:35

p.m.). From the evidence of the owner, it is also established that

the written complaint was made indicating therein that the

premium of the insurance policy had been received by the

insurance company a day prior to the accident despite the

policy was made to be issued from 20.4.2019 to 19.4.2020.

Learned counsel submit that the owner by preponderance of

probabilities able to prove his defence and the owner and driver

cannot be held responsible to make good the compensation,

9

particularly, when the premium has already been taken by the

insurance company. For the fault on the part of the insurance

company, the driver and owner cannot be made to suffer. Thus,

learned counsel submit that exoneration of the insurance

company from payment of compensation by the learned Claims

Tribunal holding that the offending vehicle was not insured on

the date of the accident, may be set aside and the insurance

company may be saddled with the liability to pay the

compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. In support,

learned counsel for the appellants/owner and driver placed

reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the cases of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v.

Dharam Chand and others, (2010) 15 SCC 141 and New

India Assurance Company Limited v. Ram Dayal and

others, (1990) 2 SCC 680 .

11.Second submission of learned counsel for the appellants/driver

and owner is that it is a case of contributory negligence and the

deceased driver of the motorcycle contributed in causing the

accident. Thus, suitable deduction may be made from the

amount of compensation awarded. Thus, it is prayed that the

appeals of the driver and owner may be allowed.

Submissions on behalf of Respondents

12.Shri Jameel Akhtar Lohani, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent(s)/claimant(s) submits that so far as dispute of

liability to pay compensation is concerned it is between the

insurance company and the owner. However, he submits that in

10

MAC No.213 of 2022 injured Ranjit Bhunjiya suffered

amputation. He was a carpenter by profession and earning

Rs.9,000 per month. He sustained 70% permanent disability. In

MAC No.210 of 2022, learned counsel for the claimants submits

that only Rs.2,18,200 is awarded and the deceased was father

of claimant Malti Bhunjiya. Thus, suitable enhancement may be

made.

13.Shri Raghvendra Verma, learned Advocate appearing on behalf

of Shri Deepak Gupta, learned counsel for the

respondent/insurance company vehemently opposes the

submission made on behalf of the appellants/driver and owner

and submits that the offending vehicle was only insured with

effect from 00:00 hours of 20.4.2019 to 19.4.2020. Admittedly,

the accident had occurred on 19.4.2019 at about 10 p.m. Thus,

on the day and time of the accident, the offending vehicle was

not insured with the insurance company. He submits that the

agent to whom the premium of the insurance policy was

allegedly paid by the owner is not the agent of the insurance

company. He submits that arguendo even if the premium is

received by the insurance company on 19.4.2019 at 16:35 hours

(4:35 p.m.), the risk was only started from the date and time of

the issuance of the insurance policy. Even acceptance of

proposal or premium would not be the relevant date for

assumption of risk under the insurance policy. He further

submits that the Claims Tribunal has meticulously examined the

evidence on record and given a categorical finding that the

offending vehicle was not insured on the date of accident. Thus,

11

the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay

compensation. He prays for dismissal of the appeals.

14.A patient hearing has been given to learned counsel for the

parties and an exercise of perusing the record meticulously with

rapt attention has been undertaken by this Court.

Analysis and Conclusion

15.The first point for consideration before this Court is as to

whether it is a case of contributory negligence on the part of the

deceased driver of the motorcycle. Learned counsel for the

driver and owner of the offending vehicle tried to persuade this

Court that as three persons were travelling on the motorcycle,

thus, the deceased driver of the motorcycle also contributed in

causing the accident. Thus, suitable deduction from the amount

of compensation may be made. This submission is liable to be

rejected for more than one reason. Firstly, Alakhram

Vishwakarma (AW-2), who is also a cited witness in the charge

sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle has

categorically deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle

was negligent in causing the accident. Secondly, the driver of

the offending vehicle was not examined to suggest that the

deceased driver also contributed in occurrence of the accident.

Thirdly, merely three persons were riding the motorcycle would

not ipso facto lead to a irresistible conclusion of contributory

negligence. There has to be more evidence to prove the

contributory negligence. Of course, riding three persons in a

motorcycle is a violation of the MV Act, however, this sole

12

reason cannot be meant to apply contributory negligence. There

must either be a causal connection between the violation and

the impact of the accident upon the victim. It is in such cases,

where, but for the violation of the law, either the accident could

have been averted or the impact could have been minimised,

that the principle of contributory negligence could be invoked as

held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mohammed

Siddique and another v. National Insurance Company Ltd.

and others, AIR 2020 SC 520. Thus, this contention of

learned counsel for the appellants/driver and owner is repelled.

16.The next point for determination before this Court is to whether

the insurance company has accepted the premium at 16:35

hours (4:35 p.m.) and would automatically mean it has assumed

the risk for making compensation and the risk would only start

on the date and time of the issuance of the insurance policy.

This is the precise point which requires determination by this

Court after analysing the evidence and legal proposition in this

regard.

17.Owner Govind Sahni was examined as witness No.1. According

to him, the previous insurance policy of the offending vehicle

was from 15.4.2017 to 14.4.2018 issued by the New India

Assurance Company. In order to insure the vehicle, he has made

payment of Rs.9,370 to Alok Shukla on 17.4.2019 at 10 a.m. The

said premium amount was paid in the account of the insurance

company on 19.4.2019 at 4:35 p.m. The owner received the

insurance policy with effect from 20.4.2019 to 19.4.2020. He

13

further deposed that he wrote a letter to the manager of the

insurance company mentioning that the premium was received

on 19.4.2019 at 16:30 hours (4:30 p.m.) to issue the policy from

19.4.2019.

18.Alok Shukla (NAW2) also deposed in the same line of the owner

Govind Sahni. He also exhibited the bank statements to

demonstrate that the premium amount was received by the

insurance company on 16:35:15 hours. In cross examination, he

admits that he is not an agent of New India Assurance Company

Limited. He was subjected to cross examination, but, that may

not be relevant for decision making of the present appeals. The

insurance policy which was earlier issued of the offending

vehicle which is marked as Ex.D9C period of insurance shown

from 17.4.2018 03:39:09 p.m. to 16.4.2019 11:59:59 p.m.

Meaning thereby the earlier policy of the offending vehicle

expired on 16.4.2019 at 12 p.m. The new policy of the offending

vehicle is exhibited as Ex.D10C. This has been proved by the

witness of the insurance company, namely, Mahesh Kumar, who

deposed that on the date of accident the offending vehicle was

not insured. Ex.D10C reflects that the period of cover starts

from 20.4.2019 12:00:01 a.m. to 19.4.2020 11:59:59 p.m. From

the record, it is apparent that the accident had occurred at

about 10 p.m. on 19.4.2019, about 2 hours prior to the

effectiveness of the insurance policy, i.e., Ex.D10C.

19.Perusal of Ex.D10C indicates that there is a receipt number

generated dated 19.4.2019. From the evidence of the owner and

14

the agent and the document exhibited by them, it is evident

that the amount was received by the insurance company on

19.4.2019. Now, the question, as stated above, whether simply

because the premium has been accepted, the risk would

automatically be assumed by the insurance company. Important

aspect of the matter is that earlier insurance policy of the

offending vehicle was effect from 17.4.2018 to 16.4.2019. Thus,

on 17.4.2019 and 18.4.2019 the offending vehicle was not

insured on 17.4.2019, 18.4.2019, even till premium was

deposited in the account of the insurance company.

20.According to the owner, he has given the premium to the agent

on 17.4.2019, but the same was only deposited on 19.4.2019 at

16:35 hours. The agent who has deposited the amount of

premium in the bank account of the insurance company was

also not the authorised agent of the insurance company as

admitted by him in his evidence. Thus, from the above

discussion, it is vivid that the insurance company cannot be held

vicariously liable for any action of the agent while there is no

authority upon him to act on behalf of the insurance company.

21.Way back in the year 1984, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Raja

Vasireddy Komalavalli Kamba and others, (1984) 2 SCC

719 held that mere filing any proposal for insurance and

depositing first premium with the Life Insurance Corporation do

not create a binding contract between the Life Insurance

Corporation and the proposal so as to enable the heirs of the

15

deceased after his death to claim the amount covered by the

insurance policy and held as under:

“15.… The general rule is that the contract of insurance

will be concluded only when the party to whom an offer

has been made accepts it unconditionally and

communicates his acceptance to the person making the

offer. ... ”

22.In the case in hand, for getting the offending vehicle insured,

the offer by way of premium was given by the owner at about

16:35 hours and was accepted by the insurance company from

12:01 hours of 20.4.2019 to 11:59 hours of 19.4.2020.

23.Thus, arguendo, if depositing the premium by Alok Shukla so

called agent in the account of insurance company is treated as

offer given by the owner for issuance of insurance policy of the

offending vehicle, but, it would not ipso facto lead to irresistible

conclusion that the offer has been accepted immediately

unconditionally by the insurance company. After the policy was

issued, it would mean that the offer of the owner was accepted

by the insurance company to begin the contract of insurance.

Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the contract of insurance only

commenced from the date and time of issuance of the insurance

policy.

24.The issue as to whether the date of issuance of policy would be

the relevant date for all purposes or date of proposal or date of

issuance of receipt came for consideration before the Hon’ble

16

Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Life Insurance

Company Limited and another v. Jaya Wadhwani, 2024

LiveLaw (SC) 19. Placing reliance on the judgment in the case

of Life Insurance Corporation of India and another v.

Dharam Vir Anand, (1998) 7 SCC 348 and Life Insurance

Corporation of India v. Mani Ram, (2005) 6 SCC 274 the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that date of issuance of insurance

policy would be the relevant date for all purposes and not the

date of proposal or the date of issuance of receipt. Thus, in light

of the above discussion, the submission of learned counsel for

the appellants/owner and driver that the insurance company

must be held to pay compensation is not acceptable. The

reliance placed on the Oriental Insurance Company case

(supra) and New India Assurance Company case (supra) is

misplaced as in those cases a cover note was issued in favour of

the insured therein prior to the time of accident. However, in

light of the above settled position of law as stated above, the

judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellants/owner

and driver do not come to their rescue. Thus, the instant

appeals filed by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle do

not appear to have any merit.

25.Now, as to whether the cross objection filed by the claimants in

the present appeals could be allowed to award just

compensation.

17

Assessment of Compensation in MAC No.213 of 2022

26.As per pleading of the claim application, the claimant was aged

about 58 years and was a carpenter by profession and earning

Rs.300 per day. Learned Claims Tribunal found his monthly

income to Rs.3,000. He was found to be 68 years of age by the

learned Claims Tribunal on the basis of Aadhar Card. Disability

certificate to the tune of 70% was exhibited. Learned Claims

Tribunal found the functional disability to 35%. Following

compensation was awarded by the Claims Tribunal:

Head Amount

(Rs.)

Loss of Earning 63,000

For Treatment 13,400

Pain and Suffering 10,000

Nutritional Diet and Transportation 10,000

Total = 96,400

27.Firstly, this Court would deem it appropriate to determine the

age of the claimant. As per claimant, he was aged about 58

years at the time of accident. In the disability certificate, his age

is shown to be 60 years, so in the treatment papers. The finding

of learned Claims Tribunal as 68 years on the basis of Aadhar

Card does not appear to be correct in light of judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Saroj and others v. Iffco

Tokio General Insurance Co. and others, 2024 INSC 816.

Thus, this Court holds the age of the claimant to be between 61-

65 years.

18

28.Next point for determination is the income of the claimant. As

per the claimant, he was working as a carpenter and earning

Rs.300 per day. Barring oral evidence, no other cogent evidence

is available on record. However, this Court is to see that just

compensation is awarded to the claimant, Thus, looking to the

evidence, age of the claimant, place of working, date of

accident, this Court can safely assess his monthly income to

Rs.6,000 per mouth. Now, the question which comes for

determination is to the functional disability of the claimant.

Ex.P1 is the disability certificate issued by the District Medical

Board. According to which, the claimant suffered 70%

permanent disability. This certificate is duly proved by AW-3 Dr.

N.K. Mandape. He has deposed that the disability is in respect of

his leg and cannot tell the extent of permanent disability for

whole body. Thus, in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and

another, (2011) 1 SCC 343, this Court proceeds to determine

the functional disability of the claimant. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Raj Kumar case (supra) has laid down the mechanism

and manner to determine the functional disability looking to

nature of job and activities. It has been observed as under:

“12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide

whether there is any permanent disability and, if so, the

extent of such permanent disability. This means that

the Tribunal should consider and decide with reference

to the evidence:

(i) whether the disablement is permanent or

temporary;

(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is

19

permanent total disablement or permanent partial

disablement;

(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed

with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of

such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the

entire body, that is, the permanent disability suffered

by the person.

If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent

disability then there is no question of proceeding

further and determining the loss of future earning

capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is

permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its

extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of

permanent disability of the claimant based on the

medical evidence, it has to determine whether such

permanent disability has affected or will affect his

earning capacity.

13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent

disability on the actual earning capacity involves three

steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities

the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent

disability and what he could not do as a result of the

permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding

compensation under the head of loss of amenities of

life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation,

profession and nature of work before the accident, as

also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the

claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of

livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent

disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on

the activities and functions, which he was earlier

carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or

restricted from discharging his previous activities and

functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale

of activities and functions so that he continues to earn

20

or can continue to earn his livelihood.”

29.The claimant has claimed himself to be a carpenter. In absence

of any contrary evidence, this Court does not see any reason to

disbelieve his profession. Carpentry is a profession which

requires frequent movement of the person to perform. It is a job

which requires physical strength and skill. The claimant has lost

his right leg and amputated from thigh above knee. Thus, the

claimant would not be able to perform his job with same

capacity as before the disability. Of course, by his hands he may

be able to manage to perform his job to some extent, however,

his efficiency skills would decrease to a great extent. Taking into

consideration al aspects of the matter, this Court is inclined to

assess his functional disability to 60% which would be loss of his

earning capacity. Thus, this Court re-assess the compensation in

the following manner:

Head Amount

(Rs.)

Monthly Income 6,000

60% Loss of Earning 3,600

Yearly Loss of Earning 43,200

Multiplier of 7 Applied For Loss of

Future Earning

3,02,400

For Treatment (As Awarded) 13,400

For Pain and Suffering 50,000

For Attendant, Nutritional Diet and

Transportation

25,000

Total =3,90,800

30.After deducting Rs.96,400 as awarded, the claimant is held

21

entitled to additional sum of Rs.2,94,400 with interest @ 6% per

annum from the date of appeal, i.e., 9.2.2022 till its realisation.

Assessment of Compensation in MAC No.210 of 2022

31.In this case also, the deceased was a carpenter and was earning

Rs.300 per day. He was stated to be 60 years of age. The

claimant in this case is the daughter of the deceased. The

learned Claims Tribunal found monthly income of the deceased

to Rs.3,000. The Claims Tribunal added 10% in his income. 50%

was deducted for his personal and living expenses. After

applying multiplier of 9 and adding compensation on other

admissible heads awarded total compensation of Rs.2,18,200.

Taking into consideration the evidence available on record,

nature of job of the deceased, his age, the date of accident,

number of his dependent and taking guidance from the

judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017)

16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport

Corporation and others, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma

General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram

and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 , this Court recomputes the

compensation in the following manner:

Head Amount

(Rs.)

Monthly Income 6,000

10% Future Prospects 600

Total Monthly Income 6,600

Yearly Income 79,200

22

(Rs.6,600 x 12)

50% Deduction for Personal and Living

Expenses

(Rs.79,200 / 2)

39,600

Multiplier 9 is Applied

(Rs.39,600 x 9)

3,56,400

Loss of Estate 15,000

Funeral Expenses 15,000

Parental Consortium 40,000

Total Compensation = 4,26,400

32.After deducting Rs.2,18,200 as awarded, the claimant is held

entitled to additional sum of Rs.2,08,200 with 6% interest per

annum from the date of appeal, i.e., 9.2.2022 till its realisation.

Assessment of Compensation in MAC No.221 of 2022

33.In this case, the deceased is Panchram Bhunjiya. He was stated

to be a mason and earning Rs.500 per day. He was found to be

aged about 30 years. His monthly income was found to be

Rs.4,500. After adding future prospects of 40%, deducting 1/4

amount for personal and living expenses, applying multiplier of

17 and adding compensation of other admissible heads, the

learned Claims Tribunal awarded total compensation of

Rs.10,73,900 to the claimants. Though the claimants pleaded

daily income of the deceased to Rs.500, however, barring oral

evidence, no cogent documentary evidence is available on

record. There are 5 dependents found on the income of the

deceased including young widow of 26 years, two minor children

aged about 8 and 7 years and parents. Thus, taking into

consideration the nature of job, age of deceased, number of

23

dependents, date of accident and minimum wages prevailing,

this Court can safely take notional income of the deceased to

Rs.9,000 per month. In light of the judgments of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra), Sarla

Verma (supra) and Nanu Ram (supra), this Court reassesses

the compensation in the following manner:

Head Amount

(Rs.)

Monthly Income 9,000

40% Future Prospects 3,600

Total Monthly Income 12,600

Yearly Income

(Rs.12,600 x 12)

1,51,200

1/4 Deduction for Personal and Living

Expenses

(Rs.1,51,200 / 4 = 37,800;

Rs.1,51,200 – 37,800)

1,13,400

Multiplier of 17 applied to Asses Loss

of Dependency

(Rs.1,13,400 x 17)

19,27,800

Funeral Expenses 15,000

Loss of Estate 15,000

Spousal Consortium 40,000

Parental and Filial Consortium

(Rs.40,000 x 4)

1,60,000

Total Compensation = 21,57,800

34.After deducting Rs.10,73,900 as awarded, the claimants are held

entitled to additional sum of Rs.10,83,900 with 6% interest per

annum from the date of appeal, i.e., 9.2.2022 till its realisation.

35.The appellants are directed to deposit the enhanced amount of

24

the compensation along with interest as awarded by this Court

within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order.

After the deposit, the learned Claims Tribunal shall pass

appropriate orders in respect of apportionment, investment and

disbursement of the compensation amongst the claimants

keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport

Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and

others, (1994) 2 SCC 176 . Rest of the awards to remain intact

subject to modifications made hereinabove.

Result

36.Ex consequenti, the appeals are dismissed and the cross

objections are partly allowed. No costs.

Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

JUDGE

Gopal