1 2025:CGHC:33615 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 341 of 2021 1 - Jagjivan Das S/o Jhadu Das Mahant Aged About 43 Years R/o Padimar, Bhadrapara, Balco , Police Station Balco, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sarita Mahant D/o Jagjivan Das Aged About 19 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Jagjivan Ram, R/o Near Kanji House Parsabhata, Balco, Police Station Balco, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. 3 - Rahul Das S/o Jagjivan Das Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Jagjivan Ram, R/o Near Kanji House Parsabhata, Balco, Police Station Balco, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sahil Das S/o Jagjivan Das Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Jagjivan Ram, R/o Near Kanji House Parsabhata, Balco, Police Station Balco, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Vishwakarma Das Mahant S/o Jahit Das Mahant Aged About 34 Years R/o Near Kanji House Parsabhata, Balco, Police Station Balco, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dilharan Das S/o Banshi Das Manikpuri R/o Padimar, Bhadrapara, Balco, Police Station Balco, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. 3 - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager , Korba , Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Shubham Agrawal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. 2 3/ Insurance Company Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 17/07/2025 1. This is the 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 1st Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba (CG) vide award dated 25th of January, 2021 passed in Claim Case No. 42 of 2019. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the claimants filed an application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 pleading there in that on 16.10.2018 at about 6.00 p.m., when respondent No.1- Vishwakarma Das was going from Balko to Deori on motor cycle No. CG 12K/5376 (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) along with Smt. Sushila Mahant, he drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as result thereof, Smt. Sushila Mahant fell down and sustained several injuries on her head and hand, she was taken to New Korba, Hospital, Korba for treatment where she died during treatment. Report of the said accident was registered in Police Station Kusmunda bearing FIR No. 458/18 under Section 304-A of the IPC. At the time of incident, age of deceased was 36 years and she was earning Rs.9,000/- per month by doing the work of sewing clothes and labourer. 3. As against the compensation of Rs. 20,62,000/- claimed by unfortunate husband and children of deceased Smt. Sushila Mahant by filing application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) for his death in the motor accident on 16.10.2018, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 6,58,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7 percent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition, till its realization. 3 4. Respondents No. 1 & 2, who are driver & owner of the offending vehicle, have filed their written statement denying the substantive pleadings made. It is pleaded that on 16.10.2018, no accident occurred with the vehicle Motorcycle bearing registrations No. CG 12K/5376 driven by non-applicant No. 1. On the alleged date of accident, respondent No. 1 had a valid & effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle. Respondent No. 2 /owner had all the valid documents relating to the offending vehicle and the said vehicle was insured from 02.01.2018 till 01.01.2019 with the Insurance Company, therefore, respondent No. 3 is liable to pay amount of compensation to the claimants. 5. Non-applicant No.3/insurance company filed its written statement denying the substantive pleading made by claimants. It is further pleaded that the accident did not occur due to rash & negligence of driver of offending vehicle, rather the incident had occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased - Sushila Mahant. At the time of the accident, driver did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle. Therefore, non-applicant No.3 is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. The vehicle owner has deliberately violated the conditions of the insurance policy. 6. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of evidence led, material placed and submissions made by the parties, held : the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 12 K 5376 by its driver, Non-applicant No. 1; Smt. Suhila Mahant, aged about 36 years, died on account of injuries sustained by her in the said accident; respondent No. 3/insurance company held liable for payment of compensation to the claimants as it could not establish violation of policy conditions, and assessed and awarded compensation of Rs.6,58,000/- aforesaid sum in favour of the claimants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation to the claimants. 4 He submits that deceased on the date of accident was 36 years of age and, as per pleading made in the claim application, she was earning Rs.9,000/- per month by doing the work of tailor, however, learned Claims Tribunal overlooking the pleading and statement of the claimants with regard to occupation and income of the deceased, has assessed income of the deceased on notional basis of only Rs.3,500/- per month. He submits that even if the income of the deceased is not accepted by the Claims Tribunal, then also the Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed the income notionally keeping in mind the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (henceforth “Act, 1948”). He further contended that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head of loss of consortium to all the claimants. 8. Ms. Swati Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3/Insurance Company would submit that learned Claims Tribunal disbelieved the occupation of the deceased, as pleaded by the claimants, in absence of admissible piece of evidence. She further submits that as learned Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case has rightly considered the deceased to be the house-wife and had assessed the income notionally, which does not call for any interference. 9. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. 10. The claimants in support of plea of occupation and income of the deceased has examined appellant No. 1/claimant as AW-2, except him, neither any witness is examined nor any document has been produced by the claimants to substantiate their pleadings before the Claims Tribunal. In the facts of the case, where except their self serving statements, no other evidence is brought on record by the claimants, learned Claims Tribunal was justified in assessing the income of the deceased on notional basis, however, fell into error in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.3,500/- per month 5 considering the deceased to be the house wife. Even if the deceased is to be treated as housewife, then also work of the house wife starts from early morning and continues till late night, she has to take care of all the family members to do the entire household work and, therefore, income of the house wife cannot be computed less than the wages of a daily wage employee. In the aforementioned facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal erred in not considering the minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Act, 1948. The accident is said to be occurred on 16.10.2018 and as per Notification issued by competent authority under the Act, 1948, minimum wages for unskilled labour of “C” Zone area is fixed as Rs.8,140/- per month, therefore, I find it appropriate to assess income of the deceased as Rs.8,140/- per month for the purpose of computation of compensation. Learned Claims Tribunal has further erred in not awarding any sum under the head of future prospect. 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has held that where the deceased is less than 40 years of age, there shall be addition of 40% of the assessed income and, therefore, in the facts of the case there shall be addition of 40% of assessed income to compute the total monthly income of the deceased. It is ordered accordingly. 12. Further, in opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. However, the Claims Tribunal though considered the age of the deceased as 36 years, but applied the multiplier of 14, whereas, in view of the decision rendered by Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, correct multiplier would be 15 and, therefore, it is ordered that the application of multiplier would be 15 instead of 14, as applied by the Claims Tribunal. Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate 6 and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, which, in the opinion of this Court, is also correct. Further, awarded Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium to claimant No. 1/husband of the deceased, which is correctly awarded in view of decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi and Ors. (supra). However, learned Claims Tribunal fell into error in not awarding any amount under the loss of parental consortium to appellants No. 2 to 3/ claimants [Children]. 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130, has explained type of consortium and it is held that there shall be 'loss of spousal consortium' to husband or wife, 'loss of parental consortium' to children and 'loss of filial consortium’ to parents of the deceased. Each. Thus, appellants No.2 to 4 are also entitled for compensation under the head ‘loss of panental consortium’ of Rs.40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. 14. For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. (A) Loss of Income/dependency Rs. 8,140 x 12 = Rs.97,680/- (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 40% (97,680 x 40% =39,072) 97,680+ 39,072 = 1,36,752/- (C) Deduction of 1/4th towards personal and living expenses (1,36,752 x 1/4 =34,188) 1,36,752- 34,188 = 1,02,564/- (D) Multiplier of 15 1,02,564 x 15 = 15,38,460/- : Rs. 15,38,460/- 2. Spousal Consortium to claimant/appellant No.1 (wife) : (+) Rs. 40,000 7 3. Funeral Expenses : (+) Rs. 15,000 4. Loss of Estate : (+) Rs. 15,000 5. Loss of children consortium to claimants/appellants No. 2 to 4 @ 40,000/- each (+) Rs. 1,20,000 Total compensation Rs. 17,28,460/- 15. Now the appellants/claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs. 17,28,460 instead of Rs.6,58,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 16. 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. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 17. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge amita AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.07.30 13:42:19 +0530