1 2025:CGHC:24193 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 752 of 2019 1 - Larang Sai Minj S/o Late Bandhe Minj Aged About 40 Years, occupation Labour andAgriculture Work. 2 - Ku. Jiwanti Minj D/o Larang Sai Minj Aged About 13 Years Occupation- Student, 3 - Jivan Minj S/o Larangsai Minj Aged About 11 Years Occupation-Student, Chhattisgarh 4 - Somaru Minj S/o Larangsai Minj Aged About 6 Years Occupation-Student, Appellant No.2 to 4 are minors, Through : Natural Guardian Father App. No.1 S/o Late Bandhe Minj, All are R/o Village Dakava Post- Baghima Chowki-Bariyon P.S. And Tahsil- Rajpur, District- Balrampur, Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.. --- Appellants versus 1 - Santosh Kumar Jaiswal S/o Rambaran Jaiswal Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Raj Post Raj Tahsil- Surajpur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal S/o Nrendra Kumar Jaiswal Aged About 50 Years R/o House No. 68 Majhapara Gali- Khadaro Post- Dhandhapur Tahsil Rajpur, Disrtict- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Manager The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Near Ambedkar Chowk Ambika Petrol BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 Pump Campus Ambikapur Nagar P.S. And Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Shubham Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondents No.1 and 2 : None present. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 16/06/2025 1. Claimants/appellants have 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 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District – Sarguja (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 08.01.2019 passed in Claim Case No.112/2018 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.9,77,200/- as compensation in a death case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming total compensation of Rs.14,64,000/- under different heads on account of the death of Smt. Dhaniyaro Bai, who died in the road accident pleading therein that on 20/04/2018, Dhaniyaro Minj and her husband traveled by bus from village Dakwa to Baidhi for her nephew's wedding, accompanied by Pickup CG 15/DE-0524 to carry dowry items. Near Baidhi bridge around 6:00 a.m., they stopped as the road was poor. Dhaniyaro got down and approached the parked pickup, which, due to negligent parking by non-applicant No.1 on a slope, rolled backward and ran over her. In the accident, Dhaniyaro Minj 3 suffered severe injuries on her left shoulder, face and stomach and she died on the spot. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased Dhaniyaro Minj was 35 years of age and was working as labourer and also doing agriculture work and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Due to untimely death of Dhaniyaro Bai, the appellants/claimants suffered loss. 3. The non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company filed their reply to the claim application and resisted the claim of the claimants. It was pleaded that the claim application was filed exaggerating the amount of compensation. On the date of accident, the non-applicant/driver was not having any valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle. At the time of accident, the the deceased was sitting in the pick-up vehicle. There was breach of conditions of the insurance policy. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal after appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.9,77,200/- as against the claim of Rs.14,64,000/-. 5. Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation. Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month only overlooking the date of accident i.e. 20.04.2018, which is much less. He next contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded proper and suitable compensation towards loss of consortium to the appellants. Hence, it is prayed that the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 4 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 -Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants and submits that the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 8. It is not in dispute that the accident is of 20.04.2018. Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month only treating the nature of occupation of the deceased on the date of accident to be labourer. True it is that claimant could not able to prove the nature of employment as also the income of the deceased by producing clinching evidence. However, in the facts of the case, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken the factors like rise in price index, place of resident, date of accident, and the wages prevailing in the area of which deceased is resident of. The learned Claims Tribunal could have also taken the note of minium wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. As per the notification issued by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, income of the unskilled labourer prevailing from 01.04.2018 till 30.09.2018, of Zone-C city has been fixed as Rs.7,800/-. In the aforementioned facts of the case, this Court find it appropriate to accept the income as pleaded and stated by the claimants as Rs.6,000/- per month of the deceased for calculating the amount of compensation. It is ordered accordingly. 5 9. As on the date of accident, deceased was aged about 35 years, therefore, there shall be addition of 40% towards the future prospects, which has rightly been applied by the Claims Tribunal. Learned Claims Tribunal has also rightly applied the deduction of 1/4 towards personal living expenses and further applied the multiplier of 16, which is in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, 10. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- towards the loss of consortium. The award of loss of consortium has been held by Hon’ble Suprme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, and further explained types of consortium in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. In case of Nanu Ram (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the husband/wife is entitled for spousal consortium, and children are entitled for parental consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. As the learned Claims Tribunal has only awarded Rs.40,000/- for loss of spousal consortium and not awarded any amount towards parental consortium to the appellants No.2 to 4, hence, an amount of Rs.40,000/- is awarded to the appellants No.1 towards spousal consortium and Rs.40,000/- each to the appellants No.2 to 4 towards parental consortium. 11. On the basis of above, the compensation calculated by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- 6 SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Annual income (Rs. 6,000x12) : 72,000.00 2. Addition of 40% towards future prospects : 72,000.00 + 28,800.00 = 1,00,800.00 3. 1/4 deduction towards personal expenses : 1,00,800.00 – 25,200.00 = 75,600.00 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 16 (75,600 x 16) : 12,09,600.00 5. For funeral expenses : 15,000.00 6. For loss of estate : 15,000.00 7. For loss of consortium to appellants (spousal and parental) Rs.40,000/- each : 1,60,000.00 Total compensation : 13,99,600.00 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.13,99,600.00. Any amount already paid to the appellants as compensation pursuant to the impugned award, shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 13. 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