-1- 2025:CGHC:14697 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 501 of 2020 1 - Smt. Kayaso Bai W/o Late Poulush Khalkho Aged About 45 Years, Occupation- House Wife 2 - Lalit Khalkho S/o Late Poulush Khalkho Aged About 22 Years, Occupation- Agriculturist and Labourer Both R/o Village Birodidand, P. S. Kelhari, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Korea, At Present R/o Village Aani, P. S. And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Narendra Singh S/o Kripal Singh Aged About 31 Years Caste Gond, Occupation Mason And Agriculturist 2 - Indrapal Singh @ Deepu Singh S/o Amar Singh Aged About 23 Years Both R/o Village Dudhaniya, Bishunpur, P. S. Churcha, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh 3 - Manager The National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh 4 - Shahid Ali S/o Manuvar Ali Aged About 38 Years R/o Moharpara, Ward No. 06, P. S. Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh 5 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Office Manendragarh District Korea Chhattisgarh, 6 - Suganti Wd/o Sushil Khalkho At Present R/o C/o Mother Sushila Bai, Wd/o Ram Sai Kujur, Ward No. 9, Amadafai, Korea Colliery, Police Chowki Korea, P. S. Chirmiri, District Korea Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.03.29 11:02:04 +0530 -2- ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 26/03/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally. 2. 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 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District- Korea (CG) vide award dated 21.01.2020 passed in Claim Case No.11 of 2019. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/applicants/claimants filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation against the respondent/non- applicants, pleading therein that on 29.07.2018 when deceased Sushil Khalkho was coming from Manendragarh to village Manapara Baikunthpur on a Honda Shine motorcycle, at that time, near the house of Amjad Ali, village Phoolpur (Charcha), non-applicant No. 1 Narendra Singh, driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently, hit the motorcycle driven by Sushil Khalkho from the front, due to which, he got fatal injuries. He was first taken to District Hospital Baikunthpur for treatment, then to Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Hospital Raipur, where he died during treatment on 06.08.2018. It was pleaded that after the -3- death of late Sushil Khalkho (since deceased), his wife i.e. non- applicant No.6 lives at her maternal home in village Manapara. Deceased Sushil Khalkho was 24 years old, who used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month through agriculture and labour work. The applicants suffered a serious loss due to his death. Therefore, they prayed for award of total compensation of Rs 37,06,000/- along with interest. 4. Non-applicant No. 1 & 2, except the admitted facts, denied all other allegations pleaded in the claim application and have stated that deceased Sushil Khalkho, while driving his Shine motorcycle at high speed, hit the vehicle of non-applicant No.1 due to which the right hand of non-applicant No.1 was broken and his right leg was seriously injured. On the report of non-applicant No. 1, a crime was registered against Sushil Khalkho in Police Station Charcha. It was pleaded that Non-applicant No. 3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Therefore, if the applicants are entitled to receive any compensation amount, then non-applicants 3 & 5 will be responsible for it. Therefore, they prayed that the claim application should be rejected. 5. Non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company opposing the claim application pleaded that accident occurred due to negligent driving of the Shine motorcycle by the deceased himself. In the alternative, pleaded that there was contributory negligence was taken. The wife of the deceased, a necessary party, was not impleaded in this case. It was further pleaded that the owner of the offending vehicle did not inform the insurance company about the said accident, non-applicant No.1 was driving the offending vehicle without a valid and effective driving -4- license at the time of the accident. The vehicle number was not marked on the offending vehicle, which is a violation of the conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, non-applicant No.3 is not responsible to pay the compensation amount and the application may be rejected. 6. Non-applicants No.4 and 5 also opposed the claim applications Non- applicant No.6 i.e. wife of the deceased in her written statement stated that she is the married wife of the deceased Sushil Khalkho. She pleaded that as she has suffered irreparable loss due to the death of Sushil Khalkho, therefore, she may be awarded a total compensation of Rs. 37,06,000/- from non-applicants No.1, 2, 3 and 5. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that the incident occurred due to negligence on the part of both the drivers of the motorcycle i.e. deceased Sushil Khalkho and non-applicant No.1 Narendra Singh in which Sushil Khalkho suffered grievous injuries and died during course of his treatment. Breach of insurance policy conditions was not found to be proved. Liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is fastened upon respondent no.3/Insurance Company. Assessing annual income of the deceased as Rs.54,000/- (Rs.4,500/- per month) notionally, calculated and awarded total amount of compensation of Rs.4,98,400/-. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the contributory negligence to the extent of 50% without there being any evidence available on record. Monthly income assessed by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.4,500/- per month treating the deceased to be ‘unskilled labourer’ is on lower side. -5- Learned Claims Tribunal erred in overlooking the date of incident i.e. 29.07.2018, as on the said date, even if the deceased was treated as ‘unskilled labourer’ then the learned Tribunal ought to have taken note of the Notification issued by the Commissioner-cum-Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the purpose of computing the income of the deceased to calculate the amount of compensation. He contended that in the award, no amount towards loss of filial consortium to appellant No.1/mother was awarded. He lastly contended, after occurring of accident, injured Sushil Khalkho was first taken to District Hospital, Ambikapur then he was taken to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Hospital Raipur where during course of treatment Sushil Khalkho died, thereafter, his dead dead body was brought back to his village -Aani, Baikunthpur, therefore, learned Claims Tribunal also ought to have awarded amount of compensation for conveyance/transportation charges. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellant/claimants and would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper amount of compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case which does not call for any interference. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of the learned Claims Tribunal. 11. So far as the submission of appellant with respect to contributory negligence is concerned, I have perused the records of the Claim Case. Apart from other documents, claimants have placed on record Ex.P-7 i.e Crime Detail Form wherein spot map is also prepared. -6- Perusal of the spot map would suggest that the deceased- Sushil Khalkho was also contributory negligent. In the aforementioned facts of the case evidence of non-applicant No.1- Narendra Singh cannot be disbelieved that it is the deceased who was also negligent in driving the vehicle and therefore finding recorded by Claims Tribunal that deceased was also contributory negligent in the accident cannot be said to be erroneous. Hence, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the said finding recorded by the Tribunal. Submission with regard to contributory negligence advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant is hereby repelled for the aforementioned reason. 12. Learned Claims Tribunal in the absence of proof of employment and the income of deceased has assessed income of the deceased on notional basis as Rs.4,500/- treating the deceased to be an ‘unskilled labourer. Learned Tribunal has failed to take note of the fact that incident is of 29.07.2018 and death is of 06.08.2018. Learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken note of the wages prevailing in the year 2018 for ‘unskilled labouer’ in the said area according to Notification issued by the Commissioner-cum-Competent Authority, Chhattisgarh, Raipur under the Minimum Wages Act. Even if for any reason, appellants/claimants failed to prove wages prevailing in the zone/area where the deceased was living, then also learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the minimum wages fixed by the Commissioner- cum- Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act. According to minimum wages fixed by the Commissioner-cum- Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, for Class-C city/zone, minimum wages fixed is Rs.7,800/- per month and therefore -7- I find it appropriate to assess income of the deceased as Rs.7800/- per month (Rs. 93,600/- per year) instead of Rs.4,500/- per month as assessed by the Claims Tribunal. 13. While calculating award of compensation, learned Tribunal has rightly added 40% towards future prospects, applied deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses and applied multiplier of 17. Rs.40,000/- was awarded to non-applicant No.6/wife of the deceased towards loss of spousal consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 . However, from perusal of the impugned award would show that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of filial consortium to appellant No.1 /mother of the deceased in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130, therefore, I find it appropriate to award filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- to appellant/claimant No.1 being mother of the deceased. Further, considering that for taking the injured/deceased from place of resident to Ambikapur and then Raipur and thereafter bringing back the dead body of the deceased from hospital at Raipur to place of resident in the village Aani, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District- Korea, I find it appropriate to award Rs.20,000/- towards conveyance charges. 14. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the discussions as also law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned -8- decisions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. Total loss of income/dependency (93,600 x 40% =37,440/- 93,600 + 37,440 =1,31,040/- 1,31,040 x 1/3 =43,680 1,31,040-43,680 =87,360/- 87,360 x 17 = 14,85,120) : Rs. 14,85,120 2. Deduction towards Contributory Negligence (14,85,120 x 50%) : (-) Rs. 7,42,560 3. Loss of spousal consortium to non- applicant No.6/wife : (+) Rs. 40,000 4. Funeral expenses : (+) Rs. 15,000 5. Loss of Estate : (+) Rs. 15,000 6. Loss of Filial Consortium to appellant/claimant No.1/mother : (+) Rs. 40,000 7. Conveyance/Transportation charges : (+) Rs. 20,000 Total compensation : Rs. 8,72,560 15. Now the appellants/claimants are awarded the total compensation of Rs. 8,72,560/- instead of Rs.4,98,400/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 16. 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. -9- 17. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen