1 2025:CGHC:16655 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 770 of 2020 1 - Smt. Sunita Lakda S/o Deepak Lakda Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Gonda, P. S. Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Pratap Lakda S/o Late Deepak Lakda Aged About 10 Month, Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sunita Lakda, W/o Late Deepak Lakda, Aged About 22 Years. R/o Village Gonda, P. S. Pratappur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Vijay S/o Kundi Lakda Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Gonda, P. S. Pratappur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Tilaso W/o Vijay Lakda Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Gonda, P. S. Pratappur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Rekha Bharti D/o Vijay Lakda Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Gonda, P. S. Pratappur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Surekha Lakda D/o Vijay Lakda Aged About 17 Years Through Legal Natural Guardian Father Vijay Lakda, R/o Village Gonda, P. S. Pratappur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Aakash Lakda S/o Vijay Lakda Aged About 10 Years Through Legal Natural Guardian Father Vijay Lakda, R/o Village Gonda, P. S. Pratappur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Dipika Lakda S/o Vijay Lakda Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Gonda, P. S. Pratappur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 Versus 1 - Uday Chand S/o Tilakdhari Dewangan Aged About 25 Years Occupation Driver Vehicle, R/o Ramnagar, P. S. Basantpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Arun Kumar S/o Amarnath Kushwaha Aged About 25 Years Occupation Owner Vehicle, R/o Village Near Forest Colony, Ward No. 11, Wadrafnagar, P. S. Basantpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Shreeram General Insurance Company Ltd. 10008 E-B, Riko Industrial Area Sitapara, Jaipur Rajasthan 302022, District : Jaipur, Rajasthan ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sangeeta Soni, Advocate For Respondent No. 1&2 : Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Prashant Sahu, Advocate along with Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 09/04/2025 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 31.01.2020 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Pratappur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 63/2012. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 11.03.2011, Deepak Lakda in his vehicle i.e. Pick-up bearing registration no. UP 64 AH 5834 went to Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh. When he was returning on 13.03.2011 towards Ambikapur, District – Sarguja at about 09:00 A.M., and reached near a Petrol Pump at Village Jarhi, pickup vehicle met with accident with the offending truck bearing registration no. WB 25 A 3862 which was standing stationary on the road. Due to the said accident, 3 the Deepak Lakda sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries on the spot. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in recording a finding that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver/deceased Deepak Lakda driving the pick-up bearing registration no. UP 64 AH 5834 also which met with an accident with the stationary truck bearing registration no. WB 25 A 3862. She contended that the truck was standing on the road and there was no sign or signal that the truck was parked on the road, due to some mechanical failure Hence, it cannot be said that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. She further contended that the learned Claims tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month only, even after recording a finding that the deceased was working as a driver and driving the pick-up vehicle bearing no. UP 64 AH 5834, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased as pleaded in the claim application. It is also contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount towards the future prospects and further, not awarding the amount of compensation under the other heads as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1 & 2 opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and would support the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 4 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 also opposes the submission of the counsel for the appellants and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal arrived at a finding that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant considering the evidence of the claimant’s eye-witness namely Ashok Tirkey, A.W.2 who was also one of the occupants of the vehicle driven by the deceased at the time of accident. It is next contended that the learned Claims Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly assessed the income of the deceased in absence of any clinching, admissible and documentary evidence brought on record by the claimants with respect to the income of the deceased. The amount of compensation calculated/computed and awarded to the appellants/claimants is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the appeal. 7. So far as the ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in recording a finding that the deceased was also negligent to the accident to the extent of 50% is concerned, perusal of the records would show that the appellants/claimants have filed the copy of the F.I.R. lodged by the owner of the pick-up vehicle which was being driven by the deceased as Ex. A-3. Perusal of the said document would show that the accident occurred in day time i.e. at about 09:00 A.M. in the morning. As per the statement of Ashok Tirkey A.W. 2., the pick-up dashed from the rear side of the stationary truck bearing registration no. WB 25 A 3862. The claimant’s witness i.e. Ashok Tirkey A.W. 2 in the cross-examination 5 has admitted that the truck was standing at the side of the road and have also stated that the pick-up was running with a higher speed. In the aforementioned facts of the case, considering the documents submitted by the claimant’s in his evidence and also evidence of A.W. 2 where it is mentioned that the accident was of day time at about 09:00 A.M. and the truck was standing at the side of the road and the pick-up vehicle being driven by the deceased dashed the stationary truck from its rear side, I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the deceased driver of the pick-up vehicle was also contributory negligent to the accident of 50%. The said finding of the learned Claims Tribunal is affirmed. 8. So far as, the second, submission of the counsel for the appellant with respect to the assessment of the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month is concerned, perusal of the evidence brought on record by the claimant’s in particular, evidence of Ashok Tirkey, A.W. 2 would show that he has not made any submission with respect to the income of the deceased. In fact, he has stated that he is not aware with respect to the monthly income of the deceased. The witness namely, Md. Ramzan A.W. 3 who is the owner of vehicle driven by the deceased has stated that he has not kept the deceased i.e. Deepak Lakda as his driver. This witness has also not made any statement with respect to the income of the deceased, though, the vehicle which met with the accident and was driven by the deceased on the date of accident was owned by the witness Md. Ramzan A.W. 3. In absence of any clinching and admissible proof of evidence with respect to the income of the deceased, it is for the learned Claims Tribunal to assess the income of the deceased on notional basis. 6 9. Perusal of the minimum wages as fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 within the State of Chhattisgarh would show that the income assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal is not less than the minimum income fixed by the competent authority for the skilled labourer. Hence, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the finding of the monthly income of the deceased as recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the said ground raised by the counsel for the appellant is repelled. 10. So far as the third ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount towards the loss of future prospects is concerned, this issue is now well-settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned facts has held that there shall be an addition of 40% of the assessed income where the age of the deceased is less than 40 years. 11.In the case at hand, undisputedly, the age of the deceased was 24 years on the date of accident and therefore, there shall be an addition of 40% of the assessed income for the purpose of assessing the compensation. It is ordered accordingly. 12. So far as the last ground raised by the counsel for the appellant that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded the amount of compensation on other conventional heads as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and Nanu Ram (Supra) is concerned, apart from the loss of dependency, the claimants are entitled for loss of spousal consortium, loss of parental consortium and loss of filial consortium for the widow, children and parents of the deceased respectively. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded the 7 loss of consortium to the appellants as discussed above, instead only Rs. 5000/- is awarded towards loss of spousal consortium, Rs. 5000/- each to the other claimants under the head of loss of love and affection, Rs. 5000/- each towards the funeral expenses and loss of estate which is not to the tune of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and Nanu Ram (Supra). 13. For the foregoing reasons, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 6000/- and since at the time of death, the deceased was 24 years old, therefore, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the income of deceased is required to be enhanced by 40% towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.8400/- (6000+2400). Thus annual income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the compensation comes to Rs.1,00,800/- (8400 x 12). Out of this amount, one-fifth is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and after deducting one-fifth annual loss of income of deceased would come to Rs.80,640/- (1,00,800 - 20,160). By applying multiplier of 18, as applied by the Claims Tribunal, to annual income, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.14,51,520/- (80,640 x 18). Besides this, Appellant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium and Appellant No. 2 for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of parental consortium and Appellants No. 3 & 4 are entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium. Now, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.16,41,520/- (14,51,520 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000). 8 As in the preceding paragraphs, this Court has upheld the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the deceased was also contributory negligent to the extent of 50% and therefore, after deducting 50% of the total compensation, the claimants are entitled for the total sum of Rs. 8,20,760/- (16,41,520 X 50%). This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 14. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- --------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey