1 2025:CGHC:13521 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 759 of 2020 1 - Dasruram S/o Bodhai Baiga Aged About 47 Years 2 - Nanhuram S/o Dasruram Baiga Aged About 17 Years 3 - Ku. Raniya D/o Dasruram Baiga Aged About 15 Years Appellants No.2 and 3 are minors, Through Legal Guardian : Father Dasruram, All are Resident Of Junpani, Police Station Taregaon (Jungle), District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. At Present Resident Of Near Water Tank, Tarbahar, Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants versus 1 - Gopiram S/o Panchram Ratre Aged About 24 Years Resident Of Village Sabratola Navghata, Police Station Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Truck No. C.G.-09-Je-0976), 2 - Vivek S/o Umadutt Mishra Aged About 22 Years Resident Of Ramhepur, Police Station Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Truck No. C.G.-09-Je-0976) 3 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager , Branch Office Plot No. 1, Fourth Floor, Maruti Heights, Beside R.K. Mall , Great Instunroad, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Appellants : Ms. Pranoti Das, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2: Mr. Chandrika Aditya Pandey on behalf of Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.03.25 11:31:30 +0530 2 For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Prashant Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 21/03/2025 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 First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 10.02.2020 passed in Claim Case No.583/2019 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.9,10,000/- as compensation in a death case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 27.03.2019, deceased Smt. Teeja Bai was returning from village Bodla to her house and when she reached near village Magarbada at that time, respondent No.1 by driving the offending vehicle truck rashly and negligently dashed Smt. Teeja Bai, due to which she sustained severe injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 3. Claimants/appellants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.15,82,000/- pleading therein that at the time of accident, deceased Smt. Teeja Bai was aged about 42 years and she used to do sewing and embroidery work and earned Rs.7,000/- per month. The claimants are dependent upon the deceased Smt. Teeja Bai. Claimants have also sought compensation under all other heads as are available to them like funeral expenses, for love and affection and for loss of estate etc. 3 4. Non-applicant No.1 & 2/driver and owner of offending vehicle remained ex-parte before the Claims Tribunal. 5. Non-applicant No.3-Insurer of offending vehicle, submitted reply to claim application, while denying the pleadings made therein, has further pleaded that on the date of accident, there was no accident from the alleged truck. The insured truck was falsely involved in order to get compensation. It is further pleaded that at the time of accident, the respondent No.1 was not having any valid driving licence to drove the vehicle. There was breach of condition of insurance policy, hence, insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 6. Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, the learned Claims Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non- applicant No.1, due to which deceased suffered grievous injuries and died. Breach of Policy condition was not found to be proved. Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.9,10,00/- along with interest @ 6% per annum, fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation. 7. Learned counsel for appellants submits that Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation. It is submitted that learned Claims Tribunal failed to consider the evidence brought on record regarding the income of deceased and erroneously assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.6000/- per month as notional income. He contended that the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have calculated the amount of compensation based on the Minimum Wages Act as fixed by the 4 competent authority, however, the income of the deceased has been assessed only to the tune of Rs. 6,000/-, which is on lower side. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amounts towards loss of parental consortium to the appellants No.2 and 3. He prays that amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant. He submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation on each and every head. The deduction and multiplier are rightly applied by the Claims Tribunal. The impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is on proper appreciation of facts and evidence brought on record by the respective parties, which does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 and 2 are driver and owner and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. It is also not in dispute that appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased Smt. Teeja Bai. 11. Perusal of the record would show that on the date of incident, deceased was 42 years of age. It is pleaded that deceased does the work of sewing and embroidery from where she earned Rs.7,000/- per month. Though the appellants have failed to prove the nature of occupation and income, however, as per the notification issued by the Labour Commissioner-cum-Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, income of a labourer in between 01.10.2017 to 5 31.03.2018 has been fixed as Rs.8,320/-. 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.7,000/- per month of the deceased for calculating the amount of compensation. 12. The learned Claims Tribunal under the head future prospects, added 25% in the income of the deceased, for the purpose of computing compensation as at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 42 years and was self employed, which is correct, as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Accordingly, after adding 25% towards future prospects i.e. Rs.1750/- in the monthly income of the deceased, the total monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.8750/-. Accordingly, annual income of the deceased works out to Rs.1,05,000/-. There is no dispute with respect to deduction of 1/3 towards personal expenses and multiplier of 14 applied by the Claims Tribunal. Accordingly after deduction of 1/3 i.e. Rs.35,000/- towards personal expenses, the annual loss of dependency works out to Rs.70,000/-. After applying the multiplier of 14, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.9,80,000/-. The Claims Tribunal has failed to award any compensation towards parental consortium to the appellants No.2 and 3, accordingly, a sum of Rs.40,000/- each is awarded to the appellants No.2 and 3 each towards parental consortium. The amount of Rs.40,000/- awarded to the appellant No.1 towards spousal consortium is maintained. Likewise, the amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses is also maintained. 6 13. On the basis of above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- S.N. Head Amount. 1. Loss of income/dependency : Rs. 9,80,000.00 2. For loss of parental consortium to the appellants No.2 and 3 (Rs.40,000/- each) : Rs. 80,000.00 3. For loss of spousal consortium to appellant No.1 : Rs. 40,000.00 (maintained) 4. For loss of estate : Rs. 15,000.00 (maintained) 5. For funeral expenses : Rs. 15,000.00 (maintained) Total Compensation : Rs. 11,30,000.00 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.11,30,000.00. Any amount paid to the appellants as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. 15. 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