1 2025:CGHC:41768 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 316 of 2021 1. Ragmen Widow Of Late Chandan Rajwade Aged About 60 Years 2. Mangali Bai D/o. Late Chandan Rajwade Aged About 40 Years Both are R/o. Village Parsapara, Police Station Surajpur, Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellants-claimants versus 1. Sanjay Gupta Son Of Tilakram Gupta Aged About 28 Years Occupation Driver, At Present R/o. Nawapara, Police Station, Tahsil And District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) (Driver) 2. Ayush Agrawal Son Of Anand Agrawal Aged About 23 Years R/o. Aspatal Colony, Surajpur, Police Station, Tahsil And District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) (Owner) 3. United India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Ram Mandir Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) (Insurer) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Praveen Kumar Dhurundhar, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate. SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 19/8/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for respective parties, this appeal is heard finally. 2. This appeal is filed by claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Surajpur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 4.2.2021 in Claim Case No.11/2019. 3. Since the death of deceased in a road traffic accident dated 26.9.2018; involvement of offending vehicle Truck bearing CG29-A-1470, which is driven by non-applicant No.1, owned by non-applicant No.2 and insured by non-applicant No.3, in said accident is not in dispute, therefore, this Court is not adverting to the facts of case and only considering submissions of learned counsel for respective parties on the question of enhancement of quantum of compensation. 4. Learned counsel for claimants/appellants submits that this appeal is filed by claimants only on the ground that Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased, aged about 65 years, as Rs.5,400/- overlooking minimum wage rate fixed by the Competent Authority and prevailing on the date of accident i.e. Rs.7,930/- per month for unskilled worker residing in C-Zone area of the State. He also contended that claimant No.2 is daughter of deceased but she has not been 3 awarded compensation for loss of consortium. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respective respondents opposing submission of learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal already awarded compensation on higher side by deducting one-third in stead of one-half towards personal expenses of deceased. Further, claimant No.2 being sister of deceased is not entitled for compensation under the head of loss of consortium. 6. Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the record of claim case. 7. Admittedly, date of accident is 26.9.2018. In claim application, deceased is shown to be an agriculture worker, who would have worked till he become infirm. Normally a person aged about 65 years cannot be stated to be infirm unless and until otherwise is proved by placing admissible piece of evidence. Hence, I find it appropriate to consider occupation of deceased to be one of labourer. It is ordered accordingly. 8. Admittedly, no evidence is brought on record by claimants to prove income of deceased to be Rs.10,000/- per month. There is no suggestive evidence available in record about the wages prevailing on the date of accident at the place of which deceased was resident, therefore, I find it appropriate to take help of minimum wage rate notified by the Competent 4 Authority for an unskilled worker for the period from 1.4.2018 to 30.9.2018. Minimum wage prescribed by the Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is Rs.7,930/- per month and therefore, income of deceased is fixed at Rs.7,930/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 9. Learned Claims Tribunal taking into consideration that claimant No.1 is widow/spouse, deducted one-third towards personal and living expenses of deceased, which in the opinion of this Court, is in consonance with decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma vs. DTC, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 121 wherein it is held that where number of dependent is 2 to 4, there shall be deduction of one-third towards personal expenses of deceased. Hence, submission of learned counsel for respective respondents that learned Claims Tribunal erred in deducting one-third in stead of one-half towards personal expenses of deceased is not sustainable and is hereby repelled. 10. Perusal of impugned award reveals that while computing the compensation the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount to the claimant No.2 towards 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 5 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, appellant No.2 being daughter of deceased is entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of parental consortium. It is ordered accordingly. 11. For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants. 12. Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.7,930/- per month and annual income of deceased for the purpose of calculating compensation will be Rs.95,160/-. Out of this amount, one-third is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased being bachelor and after deducting one-third, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.63,440/-. By applying multiplier of 7, as applied by Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency, total loss of dependency would come to Rs.4,44,080/-. Besides this, appellant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium and appellants No.2 is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of parental consortium. Appellants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses. However, as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the amount of compensation under the aforesaid 6 heads i.e. loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate, is to be increased @ 10% after every three years, which will make the compensation payable to claimants under the head of loss of consortium as Rs.44,000/- (10% of 40000 + 40000) each; loss of estate as Rs.16,500/- (10% of 15000 + 15000) and funeral expenses as Rs.16,500/- (10% of 15000 + 15000). Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.5,65,080/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount already paid to claimants as compensation shall be adjusted from total amount of compensation as calculated above. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-