1 / 2 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 534 of 2020 SMT. FULESHWARI BAI versus KRISHNA SAI Order on Board 21/04/2025 Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate for Appellants. Mr. K.N. Nande, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 & 2. Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate for Respondent No. 3. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2020, application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The grounds pleaded in the application and the submission made by learned counsel for appellants are opposed by learned counsel for respective respondents and submitted that proper explanation has not been offered for inordinate delay occurred in filing the appeal. On due consideration of the submission of learned counsel for respective parties, reasons assigned in the application and considering the fact that this appeal is filed by the claimants who are parents, brothers of the deceased seeking 2 / 2 pwn enhancement of amount of compensation as also considering that the Motor Vehicles Act under which the appeal is filed is a beneficial piece of legislation, I am inclined to allow I.A. No. 01/2020, accordingly, it is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Appeal is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, case is heard finally. Order passed separately. Signed and dated. Sd/-d/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 1 / 7 2025:CGHC:17823 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 534 of 2020 1. Smt. Fuleshwari Bai W/o Sundersai Netam Aged About 60 Years 2. Sunder Sai Netam S/o Agar Sai Netam Aged About 65 Years 3. Kunwar Sai Netam S/o Sunder Sai Netam Aged About 35 Years 4. Santosh Kumar S/o Sunder Sai Netam Aged About 30 Years All are by Caste Gond, R/o Village Baturabahar, Police Station And Tahsil Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants/ Claimants versus 1. Krishna Sai S/o Agan Sai Aged About 26 Years R/o Juna Bahar, Baturabahar, Police Station And Tahsil Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgar 2. Dol Narayan Patel S/o Nanku Ram Patel, R/o Milupara, Police Station and Tahsil Tamnar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 3. Branch Manager Chola M. S. General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Raipur Chhattisgarh Period From 27.06.2013 To 26.06.2013, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 & 2 : Mr. K.N. Nande, Advocate For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Adv. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 21/04/2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 23.02.2019 passed by Learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 65/2013, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 / 7 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 7,50,400/- as compensation in a death case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 23.11.2012 at about 9.00 a.m., when Basant Kumar Netam was returning back from Jaamgaon to Milupara, near village Padki Pahari God Nala, on Gharghora- Raigarh main road, vehicle trailer number CG 13 L 3743 (henceforth “offending vehicle”) driven by non-applicant No. 1/ Respondent No. 1/ driver rashly and negligently caused the accident. In the said accident, Basant Kumar suffered grievous injuries over his head, chest and other parts of body. He was admitted to Shri Narayana Hospital, Raipur where during the course of treatment Basant Kumar died due to the grievous injuries on 30.11.2012 . The accident was reported in the Police Station Punjipathra, based on which crime number 63/2013 was registered for alleged offence under Section 304-A IPC. 3. Appellants, parents and the brothers of deceased Basant Kumar Netam, filed an application under Section 166 and 140 of the Act of 1988 seeking ₹ 43,40,000/- as compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was about 24 years of age, was an able bodied person. He was doing the work of Cleaner and earning a monthly income of ₹ 7,000/- per month and maintaining himself and his family. 4. Non-applicant No. 1 & 2/ Respondent No. 1 & 2-Driver and the owner of offending vehicle submitted their reply, denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further stated that on the date of accident non-applicant No. 1 was having a valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle, as also vehicle fitness certificate and goods vehicle permit. It is stated that the offending vehicle was insured with non- applicant No. 3/ Insurance company, in such a situation, the responsibility of paying compensation, if any, lies with non-applicant No. 3- Insurance 3 / 7 company and prayed that the claim application filed against non-applicant No. 1 & 2 be dismissed. 5. Non-applicant No. 3/ Resp. No. 3-Insurance Company in its reply, apart from accepting the undisputed facts, denied the pleadings made in the application and further stated that the application is filed by the appellants is on false and fabricated grounds without documentary evidence. It is stated that the income of the deceased has been shown in an exaggerated manner and no document regarding the income of the deceased was brought. It is further stated that the driver of offending vehicle did not have a driving license on the date of accident and no information was forwarded to the insurance company after the accident, therefore, the insurance company would not be liable to pay compensation, if any. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Basant Kumar Netam died because of injuries suffered due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant 1. Breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found to be proved. Tribunal holding the non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company primarily liable to pay the amount of compensation, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 7,50,400/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% 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 ₹ 7,50,400/-. He submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of deceased on lower side overlooking the specific pleading made in the application and stated by the appellants-claimants in the application seeking enhancement of compensation. He contended that at the time of accident, deceased was an able body person aged about 24 years and working as Cleaner, earning 4 / 7 ₹ 7,000/- per month and therefore, the income as pleaded in the application ought to have been taken for calculating amount of compensation. He contended that even if the occupation and income of deceased is not proved in accordance with law, then learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken the wages as prevailing on the date of accident in terms of notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for an unskilled labourer for the purpose of computing the amount of compensation. As the learned Claims Tribunal has not taken into consideration the wages fixed for the unskilled labourer under the Minimum Wages Act, the finding recorded by the Tribunal with respect to loss of dependency is liable to be interefered with. It is next contended that the Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding the amount of compensation towards the loss of consortium to both the parents 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. Hence, the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 8. Learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 & 2 as also 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 of deceased on notional basis treating the deceased to be labourer. The amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper in the facts of the case 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. 5 / 7 10. The short question raised by the counsel for appellants-claimants is that the assessment of income of deceased is on lower side and further non- awarding of any amount towards loss of consortium to both the parents but for awarding loss of consortium to only one. 11. Sofar as, the submission of learned counsel for the appellants with regard to assessment of income of the deceased is concerned, learned Claims Tribunal in paragraph 16 of the impugned award has recorded a finding that the claimants failed to prove the nature of employment and the income of deceased by producing cogent and reliable piece of evidence to prove income of deceased. Perusal of record of the claim case would show that the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was working as driver and cleaner and his income was ₹ 7,000/- per month. In support of pleading made in the application, claimants have examined Sunder Sai, father of deceased, one Meghnath Sai who is resident of same village. Claimants have not examined the employer as his witness nor produced any documentary evidence to prove income of deceased. 12. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that the claimants failed to prove nature of occupation and the income of deceased by placing cogent and reliable piece of evidence cannot be said to be erroneous, hence, the said finding does not call for any interference. In the facts of the case, where claimants failed to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have considered the deceased to be an unskilled labourer and has assessed the income on notional basis taking into consideration the factors like date of accident, age of deceased, wage structure, price index etc. and can also take help of the wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to take the amount of wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum 6 / 7 Wages Act, 1948 for the period from 01.10.2012 to 31.03.2013 for unskilled labourer ie. ₹ 4,646/- per month. Upon taking into consideration the aforementioned factors, particularly the date of accident, age of deceased and nature of occupation to be labourer and also that the Act of 1988 to be a beneficial piece of legislation, I find it appropriate to assess income of deceased as ₹ 4,646/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. Application of multiplier of 18 (for the age group 21 to 25), deduction of 1/2 towards personal and living expenses and addition of future prospects @ 40% are correctly applied by the Claims Tribunal in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. 13. Sofar as the submission of learned counsel for appellants that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium to both the parents is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nanu Ram (supra) has held that the claimants/ legal representatives of the deceased are also entitled for loss of consortium under the head of loss of spousal consortium to widow, loss of parental consortium to children and loss of filial consortium to parents of deceased. In the case at hand, deceased was son of appellants No. 1 & 2, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded ₹ 40,000/- under the head of love and affection which is not a head under which the compensation is to be awarded, instead the head under which the compensation can be awarded Rs. 40,000/- each to both claimants/appellants towards loss of consortium and therefore learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding ₹ 40,000/- under the head of love and affection. 14. For the foregoing reasons, I find it appropriate to recompute the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimants as under. 7 / 7 15. Income of deceased is assessed as ₹ 4,646/- per month ie. ₹ 55,752/- per annum. Upon adding 40% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects, as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) yearly income of deceased on the date of accident will come to ₹ 78,053/-. After deducting 1/2 towards personal and living expenses, annual loss of dependency will come to ₹ 39,027/-. Upon applying multiplier of 18 to the annual loss of dependency as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), total loss of dependency will come to ₹ 7,02,486/- [₹ 39027x18]. Besides the amount of compensation towards loss of dependency, appellants-claimants shall further be entitled for ₹ 40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium to appellant No. 1 & 2, ₹ 15,000/- towards loss of estate and ₹ 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. 16. Now the appellants-claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 8,12,486/- [₹ 7,02,486 + ₹ 40,000 + ₹ 40,000 + ₹15,000 + ₹15,000] instead of ₹ 7,50,400/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. Aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% 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 pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. 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