Page No.1 2025:CGHC:16901 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 690 of 2020 1. Jagbandhan Singh S/o Moti Lal Aged About 44 Years Permanent R/o Vill.- Schoolpara, Patma P.O.- Chirmi, P.S.- Khadgawan, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Shivprasad Rajwade, Quarter No. H-1, Police Wireless Colony, Near F.S.S. Office Siddhartha Chowk, Tikrapara Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Tarabai W/o Jagbandhan Singh Aged About 43 Years Permanent R/o Vill.- Schoolpara, Patma P.O.- Chirmi, P.S.- Khadgawan, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Shivprasad Rajwade, Quarter No. H-1, Police Wireless Colony, Near F.S.S. Office Siddhartha Chowk, Tikrapara Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1. Suresh Kumar S/o Jailal Gond Through- M/s Raju Engineering H. No. 366, Main Road Darri Jamanipali Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh, Pin Code- 495677 (Driver Of Truck Bearing No. C.G.-12 S-4217 2. M/s Raju Engineering Through- Competent/ In-Charge Officer H.No. 366, Main Road Darri Jamanipali Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. Pin Code- 495677(Owner of Truck Bearing No. C.G.- 12 S-4217 3. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through- Divisional Manager (Division No. 1), The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Kachahari Chowk, Raipur, Tah. And District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (Insurer Of Truck Bearing No. C.G.-12 S-4217) ... Respondent(s) Page No.2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mrs. Swati Agrawal , Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 11/04/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.1 of 2020, which is an application for condonation of delay of 446 days in filing this appeal. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposed the submission of counsel for appellants as also the pleadings of application. 3. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1 & 2 though served. 4. On due consideration of submissions of counsel for respective parties and the reasons assigned in the application, it is allowed. Delay of 446 days in preferring this appeal is hereby condoned. 5. The appeal is admitted for hearing. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon respondent No.3, which is not disputed by the counsel for respondent No.3, therefore, service of notice upon respondents No.1 & 2 is dispensed with. 7. With the consent of the parties, the case is heard finally. 8. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal challenging the award dated 30.11.2018 passed by the learned 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the Court of learned 1st Additional Page No.3 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.69/2018 whereby application filed by claimants/appellants herein seeking compensation was allowed in part, awarded compensation of Rs.8,92,956/- and fastened liability to pay the compensation upon respondent No.3. 9. Facts of the case, in brief, are that in the night intervening 27th & 28th November 2017, Rakesh Kumar (since deceased) was travelling as a Cleaner in vehicle bearing registration number CG12-S-4217 (henceforth ‘the offending vehicle’), which got overturned due to rash and negligent driving by non-applicant No.1 as a result of which Rakesh Kumar sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately taken to a nearby hospital for treatment from where he was taken to Narayana Hospital, Raipur where he died on 4.12.2017 while undergoing treatment. On receipt of information of accident, police of Police Station Bango registered Crime No.89/17 for alleged offence under Sections 279, 337, 304A of the Indian Penal Code against non-applicant No.1, driver of offending vehicle. 10. Claimants/appellants herein, who are parents of the deceased, filed an application claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.24,40,000/- under various heads on the ground that on the date of accident, deceased was working as Helper in offending vehicle, earning Rs.10,000/- per month and they were dependent on the earning of deceased. 11.Non-applicant No.1 & 2 submitted joint reply to application and Page No.4 denied the pleadings made therein except the admitted facts. It was pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle. At the time of accident, deceased was working as Helper and getting Rs.5000/- per month as salary. On the date of accident, their vehicle was duly insured with non-applicant No.3, non-applicant No.1 was having valid and effective driving license to drive offending vehicle, therefore, non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation, if any, awarded to the claimants. 12. Non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company filed its separate reply pleading that application of claimants is not maintainable under the Act of 1988. The offending vehicle was being plied on road in violation of conditions of insurance policy and even the information of alleged accident was not given to the insurance company. Application for compensation is filed in collusion between the claimants and non-applicants No.1 & 2. On all these grounds, the insurance company has sought exoneration from the liability to indemnify the insured. 13. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the pleadings and evidence placed on record (oral and documentary both) has held that application filed under the Act of 1988 is maintainable; deceased died on account of motor accidental injuries suffered by him in road accident caused by offending vehicle and there was no breach of any condition of insurance policy. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal allowed application in part and awarded total Page No.5 compensation of Rs.8,92,956/-. 14.Learned counsel for claimants/appellants submits that the claimants/appellants in have specifically pleaded and stated in their statements that on the date of accident, deceased was working as Helper in the offending vehicle and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. However, the Claims Tribunal relying on the contents of reply filed on behalf of owner of offending vehicle that deceased was employed in offending vehicle on the monthly salary of Rs.5,000/- has assessed income of deceased at Rs.5000/-. He submits that in absence of documentary proof of income of deceased, income should have been assessed as per minimum wage fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. He submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in deducting one-half towards personal and living expenses of deceased in place of one-third, adding only 40% towards future prospects instead of 50% and in awarding interest at lower rate. He further submits that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of loss of consortium. Hence, he prays that this appeal may be allowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 argues that the amount of compensation as assessed and granted by the learned Claims Tribunal does not call for any interference. He submits that in case the amount of compensation is enhanced, interest for the period of delay in filing this appeal may not be awarded. Page No.6 16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 17. As regards the income of deceased, the appellants have pleaded that deceased was working as Helper in offending vehicle and getting Rs.10,000/- per month as salary, but not produced any documentary evidence to prove income of deceased as Helper. The best person to speak about employment of the deceased, apart from himself, is his employer. In the present case, respondent No.2 is the employer of deceased and it is specifically stated by respondent No.2 in the reply filed before the Claims Tribunal that they were paying only Rs.5,000/- per month as salary to the deceased. Once the employer has come out with a specific stand in his reply that he was paying Rs.5,000/- as monthly salary to the deceased, then there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Thus, the Claims Tribunal has rightly taken employer's version pertaining to the wages into consideration and rightly assessed income of deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month for the purpose of computing loss of dependency. 18. Since on the date of accident, deceased was 22 years, as held by the Claims Tribunal, the addition of 40% of assessed income towards future prospect is correct. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, where the victim of a road accident was bachelor, half is to be deducted from his income towards his personal and living expenses. In case at hand, admittedly the deceased was bachelor and therefore, the Page No.7 Claims Tribunal has rightly deducted one-half towards personal expenses of deceased. Looking to the age of deceased, Claims Tribunal has correctly applied multiplier of 18. However, perusal of impugned award, would show that no compensation has been awarded regarding 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, each of claimants is entitled to consortium under spousal, filial and parental respectively in case claimants are wife/husband, parents and children at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. In case at hand, appellants being the parents of deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium. It is ordered accordingly. 19. Believing the medical bills (Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-15), produced by appellants, which could not be controverted by opposite side, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,06,956/- for medical treatment expenses, which does not call for any interference. 20. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. It is directed that appellant are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each i.e. Rs.80,000/-, towards filial consortium. Appellants are also entitled for Rs.1,06,953/- towards medical expenses, Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.15000/- for funeral expenses, as awarded by Claims Tribunal. Thus, now appellants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.9,72,956/- (756000 + 106953+ 15000 + Page No.8 15000 + 40000 + 40000) instead of Rs.8,92,956/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 21. Aforementioned amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of application till its realization. Any amount already paid pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted in the amount of compensation as computed above. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 22.In view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lakkamma vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2021) 20 SCC 797, it is directed that the appellants will not be entitled for the interest on the amount of compensation computed above for the delayed period, which is of 446 days. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Nisha SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI