-1- 2025:CGHC:33330 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 652 of 2020 Smt. Pyari Yadav W/o Late Siyaram Yadav Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Rasmada Tahsil And District- Durg Chhattisgarh. ......Claimant ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Shankarlal Nishad S/o Dilanram Nishad Aged About 34 Years R/o Village- Matrodih Thana-Utai Tahsil And District- Durg Chhattisgarh. ...........Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Mazada Crain No. Cg.07/a.N./9037. .......Driver 2 - M. D. Sell B. S. P. Bhilai Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ....Registered Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Mazada Crain No. C. G.07/a. N./9037. ......Owner 3 - Branch Manager The National Insurance Company Limited, G. E. Road Aakash Ganga Complex, Supela- Bhilai, District- Durg Chhattisgarh. ......(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Mazada Crain No. C.G. 07/a. N./9037) ... Respondent(s) ______________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. A. L. Singroul, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 : None appears though served For Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Suyash Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 16/07/2025 1. This is claimant’s appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.07.31 10:34:21 +0530 -2- Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Durg, District - Durg (CG) vide award dated 5th November 2019 passed in Claim Case No.423 of 2017. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellant /claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before learned Claims Tribunal, pleading therein that on 12.06.2017, Parmeshwar Yadav along with his friend Shubham Yadav was going from Sector -5 to Sector - 10 Bhilai on a motorcycle No.CG-08-J/5055. Motorcycle was being driven by Parmeswhar Yadav. On the way, when they reached Central Avenue Sector-6 main road, motorcycle dashed against vehicle-Crane bearing No. CG 07 AN 9037 standing on the center of the road without applying any parking indication, due to which accident occurred in which Parmeshwar Yadav sustained grievous injury. He was taken to Sector-9 Hospital Bhilai where during course of his treatment he died. Before the accident, deceased Parmeshwar Yadav was a healthy young man of 25 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by working as a Driver from which he was maintaining his family members. Due to untimely death of Parmeshwar Yadav, applicant /claimant was deprived of his income. They claimed for total compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- from non-applicants under different heads. 3. Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 by filing their written statement have denied the pleadings made in the claim application and pleaded inter alia that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was parked on the road to repair the street light of electric pole and as per rules, barricades (indicative marks ) -3- were placed in front and behind of vehicle and while the work was going on, a motorcycle coming at high speed, lost control, and dashed the rear part of offending vehicle, caused an accident, for which riders of the motorcycle were completely at fault and, therefore, applicant is not entitled to receive any compensation and if the Claims Tribunal finds that applicant is entitled to get compensation than the liability to pay the same would be upon non- applicant No.3/insurance company as the offending vehicle on the date of accident was insured with non-applicant No.3. 4. Non-applicant No.3/insurance company in its written statement resisted the claim and pleaded that accident not occurred due to negligence of non-applicant No.1. It is the driver of the motorcycle who dashed the standing offending vehicle from back side and caused an accident. As there was breach of conditions of insurance policy by non-applicants No. 1 & 2, therefore, non-applicant No.3/insurance company would not be liable to pay any amount of compensation. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that Parmeshwar Yadav died due to motor accidental injuries suffered by him due to negligent parking of the offending vehicle-Crane on the road by non-applicant No.1 without applying any parking indication; deceased was also contributory negligent. Recording a finding that breach of the conditions of insurance policy was not found proved, learned Claims Tribunal held non-applicants liable to pay amount of compensation to claimant, computed and awarded Rs.6,37,000/-. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that learned -4- Claims Tribunal erred in holding the deceased to be contributory negligent in the accident to the extent of 50% overlooking the fact that it was non- applicant No.1/driver of the offending vehicle who had carelessly parked the vehicle on the road without applying any sign or indication which resulted in fatal accident in which Parmeshwar Yadav died. He next contended that learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs.7500/- per month only overlooking the pleading made in the claim application as also evidence of witness with regard to occupation of deceased to be working as Driver and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Amount of compensation awarded under other conventional heads is also on lower side. 7. Learned counsel for respective respondents oppose the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Claims Tribunal justified in computing the amount of compensation as awarded by impugned award. He further submits that accident occurred in day time on 12.06.2017 at about 5:30 pm pm and even if for some reason /work offending vehicle was on the road it was visible from far distance. Claimants failed to prove the nature of occupation and income of deceased by clinching evidence, hence, Claims Tribunal justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. Amount of compensation awarded is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 9. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellant with regard to contributory negligence attributed upon the deceased -5- Parmeshwar is concerned, it is not in dispute that accident occurred on 12.06.2017 at about 5:30 pm. The accident occurred at day time and before sunset. The vehicle can be visible from much far even if it is standing on road. According to defence taken by respondent-owner of vehicle that, at the time of accident vehicle was standing on one side of road and engaged in work of maintenance of street light though the jack lifter and barricades were put in front and behind the vehicle. 10. Considering the aforementioned facts of case in particular that accident occurred at day time before sunset at about 5:30 evening in the month of June, in the opinion of this Court, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal of contributory negligence and therefore submission made by learned counsel for the appellant challenging the finding on contributory negligence recorded by Claims Tribunal is hereby repelled. Finding of contributory negligence found by learned Claims Tribunal is affirmed. 11. So far as submission of learned counsel for the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of amount of compensation is concerned Claims Tribunal has assessed income of deceased as Rs.7,500/-. True it is that claimants failed to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased by placing admissible evidence, however, in absence of admissible evidence, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of deceased considering the other factors like cost of living, price index, wage structure and also minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act for ‘unskilled labourer’ prevailing on the date of accident. 12. For the purpose of assessing income of deceased on notional basis -6- in absence of any admissible evidence, this Court finds it appropriate to take help of the Notification issued by the Commissioner-cum-Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. In the Notification for ‘Class-A zone/area’ monthly income for ‘unskilled labourer’ for the period from 01.04.2017 to 30.09.2017 has been fixed as Rs.9620/- per month. Hence, looking to the date of accident i.e. 12.06.2017, his place of residence i.e. district -Durg, income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.9620/- per month instead of Rs.7500/- per month as held by learned Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. 13. As the deceased was below the age of 40 years there shall be addition of 40% of the established income towards future prospects of deceased, deduction of ½ as the deceased was unmarried and multiplier of 18. Claimant will be further entitled for Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. 14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 has specified other conventional heads i.e. loss of estate, funeral expense and loss of consortium and also quantified amount as Rs.15,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively. In case of of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130., Hon'ble Supreme Court has further explained types of consortium i.e. 'loss of spousal consortium', 'loss of parental consortium' and loss of 'filial consortium''. In the case at hand, claimant being mother of deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head 'loss of filial consortium’. It is ordered accordingly 15. For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the -7- amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. Loss of Income (A) Income 9620 x 12 = 115440 (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 40% (115440 x 40% =46176) 115440 + 46176 = 1,61,616 (C) Deduction of 1/2 towards personal and living expenses (1,61,616 x 1/2 =80808) 1,61,616 - 80808 = 80808 (D) Multiplier of 18 80808 x 18 = 14,54,544 : Rs. 14,54,544 2. Funeral Expenses : (+) Rs. 15,000 3 Loss of Estate : (+) Rs. 15,000 4. Loss of filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- to appellant/ claimant No.1 (wife) : (+) Rs. 40,000 Total compensation : Rs. 15,24,544 16. As the deceased was also held to be contributory negligent in the accident to the extent of 50%, therefore, now the claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs. 7,62,272/- (15,24,544 x 50%) instead of Rs.6,37,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 17. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% 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 -8- awarded by this Court. Rest of conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.f 2 18. Appeal is accordingly allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen