1 2025:CGHC:36793 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 697 of 2020 Smt. Archana Soni W/o Late Rupesh Soni, Aged About 39 Years R/o Indrapara, Near Jain Mandir Bhilai - 3, Tahsil - Ahiwara District - Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1 - Santosh Raikwar S/o Banshilal Raikwar Aged About 31 Years, R/o. Sadar Colony Shastri Ward Near Nurse Quarter Narsihpur, Police Station – Narsihpur (M.P.) (Driver and Owner of Vehicle No. MP-49-R1445) 2 - The Oriantal Insurance Company Ltd., Chamber Bhavan Civic Center Marahatal Jabalpur ( M.P.) Present Address Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Rajiv Plaza Old Bus Stand Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company Of Vehicle No. M P - 49 R – 1445). --- Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Kripesh G. Kela, Advocate For Respondents No.1 : None present though served. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 29/07/2025 1. Claimant/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 30.09.2019 passed in Claim Case No.329/2019 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.10,78,000/- as compensation in a death case. BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.12 11:11:35 +0530 2 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellant/claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.99,48,000/- under different heads on account of the death of Rupesh Soni, who died in the road accident, pleading therein that on 26.03.2018, at about 9 to 10 PM, Rupesh Soni was walking with his friend Rajarshi Gupta from Subhash Chowk towards Municipal Corporation. As they reached near District Hospital Narsinghpur, an auto-rickshaw bearing No. MP-49R-1445, driven recklessly by non-applicant No.1, collided with Rupesh Soni, due to which he suffered fatal injuries and as a result of which he died. It was also pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased was 40 years old able bodied person, was doing the work of Meter Reading in electricity department under the contractor also doing the work of photography, video shooting and thereby was earning Rs.24,300/- per month. Claimant being the wife of deceased was dependent upon him and after his untimely death she is facing great financial crises. 3. Non-applicant No.1 filed reply to the application denying the averments made therein. It was pleaded that he has not caused any accident and he has been falsely implicated. It was also pleaded that the offending vehicle was duly insured with non-applicant No.2. 4. Non-applicant No.2 filed its reply resisting the claim. It was pleaded that accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased himself and non-applicant No.1 has not caused any accident. It was further pleaded that at the time of accident, non-applicant No.1 was not having valid and effective driving license as such the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy. 3 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence on record, partly allowed the claim application, awarded total compensation of ₹10,78,000/-, exonerated non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company on the ground of breach of policy conditions and held non-applicant No.1/owner/driver of the offending vehicle liable. However, Claims Tribunal directed non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company first to pay the amount of compensation and thereafter to recover the same from non-applicant No.1. 6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation assessing income of the deceased on lower side. He next contended that learned Claims Tribunal wrongly deducted 1/2 towards personal and living expenses of the deceased as on the date of accident, deceased was married and therefore, in view of the decision in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, there shall be deduction of 1/3 instead of 1/2. He prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation suitably. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the amount of compensation awarded is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the record of claim case. 9. So far as the grounds raised by learned counsel for appellant with regard to assessment of income of the deceased is concerned, though 4 there is pleading in the claim application that deceased was engaged in the work of meter reading under the contractor in the electricity department and was also doing the work of photography, video shooting and thereby earning Rs.24,300/- per month. However, no clinching evidence was brought on record to prove the occupation and income of the deceased. In absence of specific proof and evidence with respect to the income of the deceased, learned Claims Tribunal justified in taking recourse to assess income of the deceased on notional basis, however, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month only, overlooking the date of accident as 26.03.2018. For assessing income of the deceased on notional basis, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration factors like rise in price index, place of resident, date of accident and the wages prevailing at the place where deceased was resident of. The Claims Tribunal could have also taken note of minium wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. 10. In the case at hand, there is no suggesting evidence to prove the wages given on the date of accident at the place where the deceased was resident of. Hence, I find it appropriate to assess income of the deceased treating him to be labourer taking help of the minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for that period. The minimum wages fixed by the authority for the period from 01.10.2017 to 31.03.2018 for A-zone area was 5 Rs.8,450/- per month. Hence, the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.8,450/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 11. The Claims Tribunal added 40% towards future prospects to the assessed income of the deceased, which is consistent with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. However, wrongly deducted 1/2 towards personal and living expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3. As the deceased was married at the time of the accident, deduction 1/3 for personal and living expenses should have been applied as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (supra). It is ordered accordingly. Application of multiplier of 15 applied by the learned Claims Tribunal is not in dispute and it is affirmed. 12. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- each for loss of estate and for funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, which is consonance with the decision in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), which does not call for any interference. 13. Further in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that the amounts under other conventional heads should be revisited on percentage basis and enhancement should be by 10% in a span of every three years. In case at hand, accident is of the year 2018 Hence, the appellant is entitled for 10% enhancement on the amount under other conventional heads. So, by enhancing the amount awarded under other conventional heads at the rate of 10%, the appellant is now entitled for a sum of Rs. 16,500/- each (15000+10% increase after 3 years) towards loss of estate and funeral expenses 6 each i.e. total Rs.33,000/- under both the heads and Rs.44,000/- (40,00 + 10% increase after thre years) towards loss of consortium. 14. On the basis of above, compensation awarded needs recomputation, which is as under :- SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Annual income : 8,450 x 12 = 1,01,400.00 2. Addition of 40% towards future prospects : 1,01,400.00 + 40,560.00 = 1,41,960.00 3. 1/3 deduction towards personal expenses : 1,41,960.00 – 47,320.00= 94,640.00 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 15 : 94,640 x 15 = 14,19,600.00 5. For loss of consortium : 44,000.00 6. For funeral expenses : 16,500.00 7. For loss of estate : 16,500.00 Grand Total : 14,96,600.00 15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.14,96,600.00. Any amount paid to the appellants as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram