Page No.1 2025:CGHC:36539 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 55 of 2024 1. Indrakumari S/o Late Samarnath Aged About 47 Years (Mother Of Deceased) R/o Ward No. 3, Wadrafnagar, Below Gas Godown, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, At Present Resident Of Village - Ghui, Tahsil Pratappur, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2. Reshmi Markam D/o Late Samarnath Aged About 27 Years (Sister Of Deceased) R/o Ward No. 3, Wadrafnagar, Below Gas Godown, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, At Present Resident Of Village - Ghui, Tahsil Pratappur, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants-claimants versus 1. Chandrika Panika D/o Mohan Aged About 48 Years (Vehicle Driver), R/o Village - Dala, Chowki - Dala, Chopan, District - Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh 2. Mahendra Kumar Singh S/o Shambhunath (Vehicle Owner), R/o Lalpur, Navdiha, Post - Pachokhara, District - Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh 3. Branch Manager National Insurance Company Limited (Insurance Company), Office - Vyapar Vihar Road, Above Canara Bank, First Floor, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh …..Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate on behalf of Mrs. Uttara Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Saurab Verma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 28/7/2025 1. This appeal is filed by claimants seeking enhancement of SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Page No.2 compensation awarded by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratappur, District Surajpur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 26.9.2023 in Claim Case No.60/2022 and since the death of deceased in a road traffic accident dated 2.5.2022, involvement of offending vehicle, driven by non- applicant No.1, owned by non-applicant No.2 and insured by non- applicant No.3, in said accident is not in dispute, therefore, this Court is not adverting to the facts of the case and only considering submissions of learned counsel for respective parties on the question of enhancement of quantum of compensation. 2. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased at Rs.6,000/- on notional basis without resorting to wage rate notified under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. She further submits that amount of compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side. Hence, she prays that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal be enhanced suitably. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3- Insurance Company would submit that the Claims Tribunal minutely analyzed the evidence available on record and arrived at a conclusion that claimants failed to prove income of deceased as pleaded in claim application, which cannot be said to be erroneous finding. He next submitted that overall compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is adequate and does not call for any interference. Page No.3 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. As regards the income of deceased, the Claims Tribunal disbelieved assertion of claimants that at the time of accident, deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- per month by working as agriculture worker on the ground that the claimants failed to prove occupation and income by admissible evidence and therefore, proceeded to assess income of deceased on notional basis. The approach adopted by the Claims Tribunal for assessing monthly income of the deceased cannot be faulted with. However, looking to the wage rate fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the period during which accident occurred and for the area where deceased was residing, fixation of Rs.6,000/- as monthly income of deceased appears to be on lower side. Accident occurred on 2.5.2022 and deceased was resident of District Balrampur. On the date of accident, wage rate of an unskilled labourer of District Balrampur, which is a 'C' Zone area, prescribed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was Rs.9,540/- per month. However, since the claimant themselves have pleaded that deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- per month, therefore, I find it appropriate to fix monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- in place of Rs.6,000/- per month as assessed by the Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. 6. On the date of accident, deceased was 21 years old unmarried boy. Therefore, addition of 40% towards future prospects, Page No.4 deduction of one-half made towards personal expenses and multiplier of 18 applied by Claims Tribunal is correct and the same does not call for any interference. Compensation awarded under the head ‘funeral expenses’ and ‘loss of estate’ is also found to be correct. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal awarded compensation for loss of love and affection. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the compensation under the conventional head i.e. loss of consortium, is permissible and no separate head for “loss of love and affection‟ to parents is provided. However, in case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, it is held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that the parents of the deceased are entitled for compensation under the head of filial consortium in the case of an accidental death of their child. In such circumstance, the compensation of Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards loss of love and affection to claimants is not sustainable. However, in view of the decision in case of Nanu Ram (supra), appellant No.1 is held entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of filial consortium. It is ordered accordingly. 8. Appellant No.2 is sister of the deceased and therefore, in terms of decision in case of Nanu Ram (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically recognized only heads of Page No.5 spousal consortium (widow/husband), parental consortium (children) and filial consortium (parents) under loss of consortium, appellant No.2 is not entitled for any compensation under the head of loss of consortium. It is ordered accordingly. 9. For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants. 10.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.9,000/- per month and after adding 40% towards future prospects, total income comes to Rs.12,600/-. Thus, annual income of deceased for the purpose of calculating compensation comes to Rs.1,51,200/-. Out of this amount, one-half is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased being bachelor and after deducting one-half, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.75,600/-. By applying multiplier of 18, as applied by Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency, total loss of dependency would come to Rs.13,60,800/-. Besides this, appellant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium. Appellants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses. However, as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017)16 SCC 680, the amount of compensation under the aforesaid heads i.e. loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate, is to be increased @ 10% after every three years, which will make the compensation payable to claimants under Page No.6 the head of loss of consortium as Rs.44,000/- (10% of 40000 + 40000); loss of estate as Rs.16,500/- (10% of 15000 + 15000) and funeral expenses as Rs.16,500/- (10% of 15000 + 15000). Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.14,37,800/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount already paid to claimants/appellants as compensation shall be adjusted from total amount of compensation as calculated above. 11.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-