1 / 6 2025:CGHC:13522 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M A C No. 42 of 202 0 1. Smt. Santoshi Tiwari W/o Late Kamlesh Tiwari Aged About 49 Years 2. Neha Tiwari D/o Late Kamlesh Tiwari Aged About 28 Years 3. Sneha Tiwari D/o Late Kamlesh Tiwari Aged About 25 Years 4. Anish Tiwari S/o Late Kamlesh Tiwari Aged About 23 Years All R/o House No. 167(G) Mishra Colony Bhathi Road Ambikapur, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh --- Appellants/ Claimants versus 1. Abdul Nabi S/o Emdad Ali Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Nawagarh Near Mahamaya Temple Ward No.12 Ambikapur, Police Station Kotwali District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2. Ravi Shankar Singh S/o Ramayan Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Kedarpur Bhathi Road Ambikapur, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3. Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Branch Office Ambedkar Chowk Manendragarh Road Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.(Insurer), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Ms. Aakancha Vishwakarma, Adv. on behalf of Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 21/03/2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 21.10.2019 passed by Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 64/2019, whereby learned PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 6 Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) in part and awarded total sum of Rs. 7,28,125/- as compensation in death case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 08.11.2018 the deceased Kamlesh Tiwari was coming from Bhatgaon to his home Ambikapur on his motor cycle number CG 15-AC-2670, when he reached near village-Gangapur main road, at that time, the driver of the pickup vehicle (henceforth “offending vehicle”) coming from Latori side, while driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently, hit Kamlesh Tiwari and caused an accident, due to which he suffered grievous injuries and was admitted to Medical College Ambikapur for treatment due to serious injuries, where he died during treatment. The matter was reported to the police station and a crime was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. 3. Appellants, wife and children of deceased, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking Rs. 72,20,000/- as compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was about 50 years of age, was an able bodied person, was working as Contractor and earning Rs. 4,00,000/- per annum. 4. Non-applicant 1 & 2/ Respondent No. 1 & 2- driver and owner filed their joint reply, denying the pleadings made in the claim application. It was further pleaded that there was no negligence of the driver of offending vehicle in the accident, rather the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. On the date of the accident, Non-applicant No. 1/ Resp. No. 1 had a valid and effective license to drive the offending vehicle, it was insured with Non-applicant No. 3/ Resp. No. 3. The responsibility of satisfying the amount of compensation, if any, lies with the insurance company. Therefore, the claim of the applicants against Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 be dismissed. 3 / 6 5. Non-applicant No. 3/ Resp. No. 3-Insurance Company in its reply, apart from accepting the undisputed facts, has denied the pleadings made in the application and further stated that the claim has been made on false and fabricated grounds. On the date of the accident, offending vehicle did not have valid and effective documents and Non-applicant No.1 did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle. The accident occurred due to negligent driving of the motorcycle by the deceased Kamlesh Tiwari, in such a situation claim of the appellants is not maintainable. Apart from this, the appellants have not made the owner of the motorcycle driven by the deceased Kamlesh Tiwari and the insurance company a party. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Kamlesh Tiwari died due to injuries suffered due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant 1. There was no breach of conditions of the insurance policy, contributory negligence was not found to be proved. Tribunal holding the non-applicants jointly and severally liable to pay, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded Rs. 7,28,125/- as total compensation with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 7. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre sum of compensation of Rs. 7,28,125/-. He contended that learned Claims Tribunal has not considered the occupation and income of deceased pleaded and stated by the appellants-claimants and has erroneously taken income as Rs. 4,500/- per month treating the deceased as labourer. She contended that the deceased was working as Contractor, therefore, the income as pleaded in the application ought to have been taken for calculating amount of compensation. She next contended that even if the income of deceased is taken on notional basis, learned Claims Tribunal 4 / 6 ought to have taken the wages as prevailing on the date of accident. Learned Claims Tribunal has also not awarded parental consortium to appellants No. 2 to 4 who are children as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130). 8. Learned counsel for Respondent 3-Insurance Company would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellants and further submits that the appellants failed to prove the occupation and the income of deceased by bringing cogent and reliable piece of evidence, hence, the Claims Tribunal has rightly taken the income on notional basis treating the deceased to be labourer. The amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference of this Court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record of claim case. 10. Sofar as, the submission of learned counsel for the appellants with regard to assessment of income of the deceased in concerned, accident was of 08.11.2018, occupation of deceased is pleaded as Contractor. True it is that the appellants-claimants failed to produce any admissible piece of evidence to prove income of deceased. But for assessing income on notional basis, factors like date of accident, age of deceased, wage structure, price index etc. are to be taken into consideration. In the said facts of the case, the occupation of deceased can only be treated as a labourer for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. As the income of deceased and wages of labourer within the district Surguja where the deceased was residing and working is also not proved, therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to take the amount of wages fixed by the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Raipur for the period 01.10.2017 to 31.03.2018, as the accident occurred in the year 2018. The monthly wages fixed by the Labour 5 / 6 Commissioner for Class-B city is Rs. 8060/- per month. Upon taking into consideration the aforementioned factors, particularly the date of accident, age of deceased and nature of occupation to be labourer, I find it appropriate to assess income of deceased as Rs. 8060/- per month instead of Rs. 4500/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 11. In the case at hand, deceased was 48 years of age on the date of accident as held by Tribunal, hence, there will be addition of 10% of established income in the income of deceased for assessing total income of deceased for purpose of calculating compensation as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Tribunal has not deducted any amount towards personal and living expenses of deceased ie. the expenses which is to be incurred for survival of deceased. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 has issued guidelines for deducting personal and living expenses based on number of dependents upon deceased and held that where the dependents are three, there will be deduction of 1/3rd and where the number of dependents are 4 to 6 there will be deduction of 1/4th as the case may be. In the instant case, there are 4 dependents, hence, there will be deduction of 1/4th of the income of deceased towards personal and living expenses. It is ordered accordingly. Appellants-claimants shall further be entitled for amount of compensation on other conventional heads as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Nanu Ram (supra). 12. For the foregoing reasons, I find it appropriate to recompute the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimants as under. 13. Income of deceased is assessed as Rs. 8060/- per month ie. Rs. 96,720/- per annum. Upon adding 10% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects, yearly income of deceased on the date of accident will come to 6 / 6 Rs. 1,06,392/-. After deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses, annual loss of dependency will come to Rs.79,794/-. Upon applying multiplier of 13 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 50 years of age on the date of accident, total loss of dependency will come to Rs. 10,37,322/- [Rs.79794x13]. Besides the amount of compensation towards loss of dependency, appellants-claimants shall further be entitled for Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium, Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium to appellants No. 2 to 4, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. 14. Now the appellants-claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of Rs. 12,27,322/- [Rs.10,37,322 + Rs.40,000+ Rs.40,000+ Rs.40,000+ Rs.40,000+ Rs.15,000+ Rs.15,000] instead of Rs.7,28,125/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. Aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount paid to the appellants shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. 15. 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