1 2025:CGHC:18072 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 893 of 2020 1 - Udayram Nishad S/o Sukahram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Rivagahan, Post Surpa, Tehsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Sarita Bai W/o Udayram Nishad Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Rivagahan, Post Surpa, Tehsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants Versus 1 - Hupendra Kumar Sinha S/o Doniram Sinha Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Haldi, Thana And Tehsil Gunderdehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh .........Driver, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2 - M/s Ruchi Enterprises Through Avinsh Jain S/o Gautamchand Jain, Aged About 39 Years R/o Rishabh Green City, Durg Thana Pulgaon, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ........Owner, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - United India Insurance Company Limited Station Road, Paras Complex, Thana Mohan Nagar, Durg Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh .........Insurance Company, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants : Ms. Santoshi Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None though served For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 22/04/2025 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 07.12.2019 passed by the II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 383/2019. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 17.05.2019 at about 01:40 P.M., Deepak Kumar was going towards Village Rewagahan from Village Orma on his motorcycle and when he reached near village Kalangpur, the offending Truck bearing Registration No. CG 07 BL 4700 which was being driven by the Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of Deepak Kumar and thereafter, ran over him due to which, he succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Subsequent to the said accident, an FIR was lodged against the Respondent No. 1 bearing Crime No. 32/2019 at P.S. Ranchirai, District – Balod for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 279, 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased i.e. the son of the appellant aged about 19 years to only Rs. 8,000 p.m. disbelieving the nature of occupation and the income of the deceased as Mason and earning Rs. 9,000 p.m. respectively. She also contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount of compensation towards the future prospects and not awarding the amount of compensation on other conventional heads as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma 3 General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 would oppose the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Trial Court recorded a finding that the appellants failed to prove the occupation and the income as pleaded in the application by placing cogent and reliable piece of evidence and therefore, has assessed the income of the deceased on notional basis, treating the appellant as ‘Labourer’. Hence, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal with respect to the nature of occupation and the income of the deceased does not call for any interference and the amount of compensation awarded in the facts of the case is just and proper. He also submits that the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal has been satisfied on 17.02.2020. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the appeal and the impugned award. 6. The short question involved in this appeal is with regard to seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. 7. So far as the submission of the counsel for the appellant with respect to the nature of occupation and the income assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal is concerned, though, there is a pleading made by the appellants that the deceased who was aged about 19 years was doing the work of mason and earning Rs. 9,000/- p.m., however, there is no acceptable piece of evidence brought on record by the appellants. Perusal of the impugned award shows that, to prove the income of the deceased, only the father of the deceased has been examined and no other witnesses have been examined by the appellants. In the 4 aforementioned facts of the case, I do not find any illegality or error in the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that claimants failed to prove occupation and income of deceased and considered the work of deceased as Labourer. 8. With respect to the income of ‘Labourer” is concerned, in absence of any admissible piece of evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal or the Court are required to assess the income of a person on notional basis considering the price index, wage structure and may also take the help of notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. As per the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the year 01.04.2019 to 30.09.2019, the wage structure for the employees working in ‘B’ category city is Rs. 8060/-. Hence, considering the place of residence of the claimants and the income as notified for unskilled labourer as Rs. 8060/-, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased as Rs. 8060/- per month instead of Rs. 8,000/- as assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 9. So far as, the submission of the counsel for the appellant that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount of compensation towards the future prospects is concerned, law in this regard is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case has held that where the deceased is below 40 years of age, 40% of the assessed income is to be added towards future prospects. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled for addition of 40% of the assessed income i.e. Rs. 11,284/- (8060 + 40%). 5 10. Next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding Rs. 40,000/- towards the other conventional heads is concerned, the award of other conventional heads apart from the loss of dependency was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and Nanu Ram (Supra) wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that apart from the loss of dependency, the claimants/legal representatives are entitled for loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses to the tune of Rs. 40,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. 11. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nanu Ram (Supra) has explained the entitlement of the amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium to the spouse, children and parents and held that each of the legal representatives as mentioned above are entitled for an amount of Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of consortium. It is ordered accordingly. 12. For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants. 13. Accordingly, the income of deceased as mentioned above is enhanced by 40% towards future prospects, which comes to Rs. 11,284/-. Thus annual income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the compensation comes to Rs.1,35,408/- (11,284 x 12). Out of this amount, ½ is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and after deducting ½ from the annual income, annual loss of income of deceased would come to Rs.67,704/- (1,35,408 - 67,704). By applying multiplier of 18, as applied by the Claims Tribunal, to annual income, the total loss of dependency would come to 6 Rs.12,18,672/- (67,704 x 18). Besides this, Appellants No. 1 & 2 are entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards filial consortium, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance (Supra). Further, they are also entitled for Rs. 15,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.13,28,672/- (12,18,672 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000). This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 14. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 16. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- -----/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey