-1- 2025:CGHC:33262 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 701 of 2019 1 - Smt.Parwati Dhruv W/o Late Jagehwar Dhruv Aged About 48 Years 2 - Ku. Kavita Dhruv D/o Late Jageshwar Dhruv Aged About 25 Years 3 - Vikash Dhruv S/o Late Jageshwar Dhruv Aged About 23 Years 4 - Smt. Pilee Bai Dhruv W/o Late Fagnuram Dhruv Aged About 70 Years All R/o Near Bhagwat Kirana Stores, Baramdaipara, Khamtarai, Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Neeloram Netam S/o Jagar Netam Aged About 27 Years R/o House No. 79, Village Ramaram (Sukma), Police Station Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh ...............(Driver Of Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. Cg 17 S. S. /4124) 2 - Gyansingh Chandel S/o D. P. Chandel Aged About 42 Years R/o House No. 295/3, Bijli Office, Kondagaon, District Sukma Chhattisgarh ............... (Registered Owner Of Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. Cg 17 S. S. /4124) 3 - The Branch Manager The Chola Mandlam General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager/ Branch Office, In Front Of L. I. C. Office, Simran Tower, Second Floor, Pandri, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ...............(Insurer Of Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. Cg 17 S. S. /4124) ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Shrishti Upadhyay, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D.L. Dewangan, Advocate _______________________________________________________ Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.08.05 10:17:24 +0530 -2- S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 16/07/2025 1. Learned counsel for appellants submits that as liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon respondent No.3/insurance company and it is represented by counsel, therefore, this appeal be heard finally at motion stage. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company do not dispute the submission of learned counsel for the appellants with regard to liability to satisfy the amount of compensation. 3. On due consideration of the submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties, this appeal is heard finally at admission stage. 4. This is claimants’ appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Sixth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal , Raipur vide award dated 01.09.2018 passed in Claim Case No.504 of 2017. 5. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the learned Claims Tribunal pleading therein that on 19.06.2017 when Jageshwar Dhruv was going to Bijapur driving his vehicle truck number CG-04/ZD/5653, driver of truck CG-17/SS/4124 coming from Jagdalpur, drove his vehicle very fast and carelessly, dashed against the truck driven by Jageshwar from front side, caused an accident, due to -3- which Jageshwar Dhruv died after getting stuck in the steering. Deceased was a healthy person of 50 years at the time of the accident and was getting salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month, which he was using for maintaining his family. Applicants suffered mental shock due to untimely death of Jageshwar Dhruv, filed application seeking compensation and claimed compensation of Rs. 31,50,000/- (in words thirty one lakh fifty thousand rupees) along with interest from the non-applicants on all heads. 6. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 have submitted their reply and denied all the pleadings made in the claim application and further pleaded that vehicle number CG-17/SS/4124 owned by non-applicant No. 2 was insured with non-applicant No. 3 on the date of incident i.e. 19.06.2017, driver of the said vehicle, non-applicant No. 1, had a valid and effective driving license and hence, liability to pay amount of compensation is upon non- applicant No.3/insurance company. 7. Non-applicant No. 3/Insurance Company in its written statement resisted the claim and pleaded that, on the date of the accident, driver of vehicle number CG-17/SS/4124 was driving the vehicle without a valid and effective license, which is a violation of the essential conditions of the insurance policy. Vehicle number CG-17/SS/4124 was being used without fitness and permit, due to which non-applicant No. 3/insurance company is not liable to pay amount of compensation, if any. 8. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which Jageshwar Dhruv -4- suffered fatal injuries and died. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found proved, held non- applicants liable to pay the amount of compensation. Assessing income of the appellant/claimant as Rs.6000/- per month, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.5,72,200/-. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation overlooking the pleading with regard to nature of occupation and income of deceased. She also contended that learned Claims Tribunal has erroneously assessed age of the deceased as 56 years and applied wrong multiplier of 9 whereas as per date of birth mentioned in Ex-P10C on the date of accident, age of the deceased would be only 52 years. Deduction of 1/3 was applied instead of ¼. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 where legal representatives of deceased are 2 to 4 appropriate deduction is mentioned as ¼. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company vehemently opposes submission of learned counsel for the appellants and further submits that claimants failed to prove nature of occupation by placing acceptable piece of evidence of his occupation and also his income and therefore learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing income notionally. She also submits that amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. -5- 11. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellants with regard to age of deceased as assessed by learned Claims Tribunal is concerned, claimants in support of pleading made in claim application have placed on record copy of Driving Licence as Ex.P-10/C. Learned Claims Tribunal has also taken note of said document and taken the date of birth of deceased as 14.05.1965. Date of incident is 19.06.2017, however, Claims Tribunal ascertained age as 56 years, which is erroneous. Age of deceased based on date of birth available, as on 19.06.2017 i.e. date of accident, will be 52 years only and therefore age of deceased as assessed by learned Claims Tribunal is not sustainable and accordingly it is set aside and it is held that on the date of accident, deceased was aged about 52 years. It is ordered accordingly. 12. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellant with regard to assessment of income of deceased as Rs.6000/- per month only is concerned, learned Claims Tribunal recording a finding that claimants failed to prove nature of occupation and income, has assessed income of deceased treating him to be labourer. 13. Learned Claims Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that claimants have produced copy of licence in the name of deceased as Ex.P-10/C in which there is endorsement authorizing the deceased to drive the transport vehicle and light motor vehicle. The validity of licence for driving transport vehicle is mentioned therein 06.05.2020 and for non-transport vehicle as 06.05.2019. If any person is possessed of a licence with an endorsement authorizing him to drive transport vehicle, is itself sufficient to consider that deceased prior to date of accident might be working as driver and, -6- therefore, in absence of any proof of income of deceased, it is to be ascertained keeping in mind the fact that deceased was working as Driver and not as a Labourer. As per Notification issued under Minimum Wages Act for the period from 01.04.2017 till 30.09.2017 wages for 'skilled labourer' is fixed as Rs.11,180/-. On the date of accident, deceased was resident of Raipur, therefore, I find it appropriate to assess income of deceased as Rs.11,180/-. It is ordered accordingly. 14. As this Court has assessed the age of deceased on the date of accident to be 52 years and therefore appropriate multiplier would be 11 instead of 9 as applied by Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. Appropriate deduction would be ¼ in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). There shall be addition of 10% of established income towards future prospects as held Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 15. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses' and Rs.40,000/- to claimant/wife under the head loss of spousal consortium, which in the facts of the case appears to be correct. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded consolidated amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.10000/- each) to claimants No. 2 to 4 towards loss of consortium which in the facts of case is not correct. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Pranay Sethi (supra) 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 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. -7- (2018) 18 SCC 130, Hon'ble Supreme Court has further explained types of consortium and held that parents will be entitled for loss of filial consortium and children will be entitled for loss of parental consortium. 16. In the case at hand, claimants No. 2 & 3 are children of deceased, therefore, they are entitled to award Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of ‘parental consortium’. Claimants No.4 is mother of deceased, therefore, she will be entitled to award of Rs.40,000/- under head of 'filial consortium'. Claimants are further entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’. It is ordered accordingly. 17. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has observed that compensation awarded under other conventional heads like ‘loss of estate, ‘funeral expenses’ and ‘consortium’ is to increased by 10% after every three years and, therefore, in the facts of the case, I find it appropriate to increase aforementioned compensation by 20%, which makes the compensation towards ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’ as Rs.18,000/- each and ‘loss of consortium’ as Rs.48,000/- each. 18. For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- 1. Loss of Income (A) Income 11180 x 12 = 134160 (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 10% (134160 x 10% =13416) 134160 + 13416 = 1,47,576 (C) Deduction of 1/4 towards : Rs. 12,17,502 -8- personal and living expenses (1,47,576 x 1/4 =36894) 1,47,576 - 36894 = 110682 (D) Multiplier of 11 110682 x 11 = 1217502 2. Funeral Expenses : (+) Rs. 18,000 3 Loss of Estate : (+) Rs. 18,000 4. Loss of Spousal Consortium of Rs.48,000/- to claimant No.1/wife : (+) Rs. 48,000 4. Loss of Parental Consortium of Rs.48,000/- each to appellant/ claimants No.2 & 3 (children) : (+) Rs. 96,000 4. Loss of Filial Consortium of Rs.48,000/- to claimant No.4/mother : (+) Rs. 48,000 Total compensation : Rs. 14,45,502 19. Now the appellant/claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs. 14,45,502/- instead of Rs.5,75,200/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 20. 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 awarded by this Court. Rest of conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.f 2 -9- 21. Appeal is accordingly allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen