Page No.1 2025:CGHC:18336 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 661 of 2020 1. Laxmi Narayan S/o Late Pardeshi Yadav Aged About 44 Years R/o Mahamayapara Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., 2. Chandrika Bai W/o Laxmi Narayan Aged About 40 Years R/o Mahamayapara Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants/Claimants versus 1. Virendra Singh S/o Kanhaiya Singh Rajput Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Gandhidih Ward No.11 Lormi District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. (Driver of Offending Vehicle Tractor No. C.G.28/b./4153). 2. Yashwant Singh S/o Shobharam Rajput Aged About 38 Years Permanent R/o Mahaveer Ward Majgaon, Lormi District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh (Owner of offending Vehicle Tractor No. C.G.28/B./4153). 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office- Rama Trade Center Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of Offending Vehicle Tractor No. C.G.28/B/4153). …..Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 & 2 : None. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Sameer Singh, Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page No.2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 23/04/2025 1. Notice issued to respondent No.1 & 2 is reported to be awaited. 2. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that the Claims Tribunal has fastened liability to satisfy the impugned award upon respondent No.3- Insurance Company; appeal challenging the impugned award has not been filed by Insurance Company, hence, service of notice upon respondent No.1 & 2 be dispensed with and appeal be heard finally at motion stage itself. 3. Submission of learned counsel for appellants with respect to fastening of liability upon respondent No.3 is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 4. As there is representation on behalf of respondent No.3 and liability to satisfy the compensation is upon respondent No.3, service of notice upon respondents No.1 and 2 is hereby dispensed with. 5. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at admission stage. 6. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal challenging the award dated 06.12.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District Mungeli (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.10/2019 whereby the Claims Tribunal allowed application of claimants in part; awarded compensation of Rs.5,25,917/- to claimants/appellants herein along with interest Page No.3 @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application, in a fatal accident case. 7. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 24.3.2018 at about 7:45 p.m. Somesh Yadav (since deceased) along with his friend Chakradhar Yadav was returning home situated in Lormi from village Sardha on motorcycle. He was travelling as a pillion. When they reached near village Ranigaon, at that time tractor bearing registration No.CG28-B-4153 (henceforth ‘the offending vehicle’), which was coming from Lormi, driven rashly and negligently by non-applicant No.1, dashed their motorcycle and caused accident. In that accident, Somesh Yadav sustained grievous injuries on various parts of body. He was taken to Community Health Centre, Lormi but looking to his critical condition, he was taken to KIMS Hospital, Bilaspur and from where he was referred to BR Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur. He died on 25.3.2018 while undergoing treatment at Raipur. Accident was reported to concerned police station based on which Crime No.142/2018 for commission of alleged offence under Sections 279, 337, 337, 338 & 304A of the Indian Penal Code was registered. 8. Claimants/appellants herein, who are parents of deceased, filed an application claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.30,50,000/- under various heads on the ground that on the date of accident, deceased was working as a Salesman in Anil Big Bazar Lormi, earning Rs.8,000/- per month and they were Page No.4 dependent on earning of deceased. 9. Non-applicant No.1 & 2 did not appear before the Claims Tribunal and therefore, they were proceeded exparte. 10.Non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company filed its reply denying averments made in claim application except that on the date of accident the offending vehicle was insured with it. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, four persons were travelling on motorcycle and accident had occurred only due to their own negligence. At the time of accident, driver of offending vehicle was not possessing valid license and as such, there was violation of conditions of insurance policy and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 11.Upon appreciating the pleadings and evidence brought on record (oral and documentary both) by the respective parties, the Claims Tribunal arrived at conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by non-applicant No.1; there was no violation of any condition of insurance policy. The Claims Tribunal has allowed the application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.5,25,197/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. assessing income of deceased on notional basis and fastened liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon respondent No.3-Insurance Company. 12. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased on notional basis, particularly when it was specific pleading and evidence of Page No.5 claimants that deceased was working as Salesman in Anjali Big Bazar and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. He further submits that nothing has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards future prospects, loss of consortium and loss of estate. Hence, he prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation suitably. 13. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposing submissions made by counsel for appellants, would submit that the impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, which does not call for any interference. As the claimants failed to prove the nature of employment of deceased and income therefrom, the Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the income on notional basis. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 15. As regards the income of deceased, claimants have pleaded and stated in their evidence that at the time of accident, deceased was working in Anil Big Bazar, Lormi as a Salesman and earning Rs.8,000/- per month, but they have not produced any income certificate/ salary slip nor examined the employer of the establishment where deceased was working, to prove the fact of his occupation and income. Under these circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal has not committed any mistake in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. However, in cases where documentary evidence is not produced to prove income of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal should determine his income on the basis of wages Page No.6 prevailing in area, price index, cost of living or can take help of the wage rate notified under the Minimum Wages Act. In case at hand, the Claims Tribunal, on guess work assessed income of deceased to be Rs.4,500/- per month but did not resort to circulars/notifications issued by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 notifying wage rate for skilled, unskilled and high skilled workers and therefore, fixation of income of deceased at Rs.4500/- per month by learned Claims Tribunal is not proper. 16. Date of accident is 24.3.2018. Deceased was resident of Lormi, District Mungeli which is a ‘C’ grade city. As per Schedule ‘B’ issued by the Labour Commissioner-cum-Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Raipur notifying minimum wage for the unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled and high skilled workers for the period from 1.10.2017 to 31.3.2018, would show that minimum wage notified for a unskilled worker is Rs.7,800/- per month for ‘C’ grade city. Thus, considering minimum wage rate prevailing for unskilled worker on the date of accident in District Mungeli, which is a ‘C’ grade city, I am of the view that income of deceased can be fixed at Rs.7,800/- per month. 17. Perusal of impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal has not added anything towards future prospects. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 630, 40% has to be added if the age of the victim is below 40 years. In case at hand, Page No.7 the deceased was 22 years, as held by Claims Tribunal relying on postmortem report and application (Ex.A-3) and discharge sheet (Ex.A-5), therefore, the Claims Tribunal should have added 40% of assessed monthly income to income of deceased for computing loss of dependency. Hence, it is ordered that appellants are entitled for addition of 40% in the income of deceased. 18. Deduction made towards personal expenses of deceased and multiplier applied by Claims Tribunal is correct and the same does not call for any interference. Compensation awarded under the head ‘funeral expenses’ is also found to be correct. 19. Perusal of impugned award reveals that while computing the compensation the Claims Tribunal has not awarded just amount to the claimants towards loss of consortium. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, claimants being wife is entitled to spousal consortium, children to parental consortium and parents to filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. Hence, in case at hand appellants being parents of deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium. It is ordered accordingly. 20. Medical bills evidencing the expenses incurred for treatment and purchase of medicines have been produced by the claimants and marked as Ex.A-13 to A-17. Genuineness of the said medical bills Page No.8 has not been disputed. A sum of Rs.4197/- is covered by the said bills. Believing said medical bills, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4197/- towards medical expenses of deceased. In the facts of the case, at no stretch of imagination, the said amount awarded as compensation by the Claims Tribunal towards medical expenses can be termed excessive or unreasonable. 21. The Claims Tribunal was not justified in awarding Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076, the Apex Court observed that Loss of Consortium subsumes Loss of Love and Affection. Therefore, the compensation need not be granted separately for Loss of Love and Affection and Loss of Consortium. Hence, amount awarded by Claims Tribunal for loss of love and affection requires to be reduced from the total awarded compensation. It is ordered accordingly. 22.For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants. 23.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.7,800/- per month and since at the time of accident the deceased was 22 years old, therefore, in view of the law laid down in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), the income of deceased is required to be enhanced by 40% towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.10,920/-(7800+3120). Thus, annual income of deceased for the purpose of calculating compensation comes to Rs.1,31,040/-. Page No.9 Out of this amount, one-half is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased, who was bachelor, and after deducting one-half, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.65,520/-. By applying multiplier of 18, as applied by Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency, total loss of dependency would come to Rs.11,79,360/- (65520x18). Besides this, appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each i.e. Rs.80,000/-, towards loss of filial consortium being parents of the deceased, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram (supra). They are also entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses i.e. Rs.36000/-. However, as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 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 under the head of loss of consortium as Rs.44000/- (10% of 40000 + 40000); loss of estate as Rs.16,500/- (10% of 15000 + 15000) and funeral expenses as Rs.16,5000/- (10% of 15000 + 15000). Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.13,00,360/- (11,79,360 + 44400 + 44400 + 16500 + 16500). This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% 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. 24.Any amount already paid to claimants/appellants as Page No.10 compensation shall be adjusted from total amount of compensation as calculated above. 25.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/- SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI