1 2025:CGHC:26818 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 873 of 2019 1. Bhagwati W/o Late Navratan Sidar Aged About 34 Years 2. Santeeta D/o Late Navratan Sidar Aged About 10 Years 3. Ankita D/o Late Navratan Sidar Aged About 7 Years 4. Anushtha D/o Late Navratan Sidar Aged About 5 Years 5. Komal S/o Late Navratan Sidar Aged About 2 Years Appellants No.2 to 5 Minor through Legal Guardian Mother Bhagwati, 6. Budhni Bai W/o Late Bhagatram Sidar Aged About 56 Years All R/o Village Pujeripali, Tehsil- Dabra, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh.............(Claimants). ... Appellants-claimants versus 1. Vishnu Gupta S/o Ramchandra Gupta Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No.8, Jhilmila, P.S. And Tehsil Saraipali District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh............(Driver), 2. Hariprasad S/o Ramchandra Gupta Aged About 56 Years Ward No.8, Jhilmila, P.S. And Tehsil Saraipali, Disrtict- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh...........(Owner), 3. Branch Manager Through Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh.............(Insurance Company). ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Raghvendra Verma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 23/06/2025 1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned 1st 2 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 29.1.2019 in Claim Case No.1/2018 for the death of deceased Navratan Sidar in a road accident. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that appellants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.43,22,000/- under various heads, for death of Navratan Sidar in a motor vehicular accident. According to claimants, who are widow, children and mother of deceased, on 30.8.2017 at about 8:00 p.m. when Navratan Sidar along with his friends was standing in front of a truck in village Chuchubhata, another truck bearing registration number CG13-L-6785, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver (non-applicant No.1), ran over Navratan Sidar as a result his head was crushed and he died on the spot. Accident was reported in concerned police station. It was further pleaded that deceased was working as labourer and earning Rs.9,000/- per month and they were dependent on the income of deceased. 3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of offending vehicle, did not appear before the Claims Tribunal and therefore they were proceeded ex-parte. 4. Non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company also filed a separate 3 reply and took a stand that driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. The Claims Tribunal upon analyzing the pleadings and evidence brought on record by the parties, came to the conclusion that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by non-applicant No.1 which resulted in death of deceased; disbelieved version of claimants that deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- p.m. by working as labourer by recording that claimants failed to prove occupation and income of deceased by placing any documentary evidence in that regard. It was also held that there was no violation of any of the conditions of policy. Consequently, the Claims Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded compensation of Rs.8,80,500/- and fastened liability upon the non-applicants, jointly and severally, to satisfy the award. 6. Learned counsel for claimants/appellants submits that income of deceased has not been properly assessed by the Claims Tribunal. He next contended that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium to the dependent family members of deceased. Therefore, he prays that amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced. 4 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 supporting the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused record of claim case including impugned award. 9. So far as income of the deceased is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has assessed income of deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month only, which is not just and proper. The accident occurred on 30.8.2017 and at the time of accident, deceased was resident of District Janjgir Champa, which comes within the category ‘C’ Zone, therefore, considering the minimum wage rate prescribed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for an unskilled labour Zone ‘C’ category, for the relevant period, the income of the deceased is fixed as Rs.6,200/- per month. 10. In the postmortem report Ex.P-6 age of deceased was mentioned to be 36 years and accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has treated the deceased to be of 36 years on the age. Hence, addition of 40% towards future prospects; deduction of one-fourth towards personal expenses of deceased (number of dependent is 6) and multiplier of 15 applied by the Claims Tribunal to assess the loss of dependency is in consonance with the law settled in this 5 regard and the same need no interference. 11. Perusal of impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, the widow, children and parents of victim who died in a road accident are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each for loss of spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium. Thus, appellants herein being widow, children and mother of the deceased would entitle to spousal, parental consortium and filial consortium in the sum of Rs.40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. 12.For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants. 13.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.6,200/- per month and after adding 40% towards future prospects, monthly income of deceased would come to Rs.8,680/- and annual income would be Rs.1,04,160/-. Out of this amount, one-fourth is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased, as deducted by the Claims Tribunal, and after deducting one-fourth, loss of dependency would come to Rs.78,120/-. Applying multiplier of 15, as applied by Claims Tribunal, the loss of dependency would be 6 Rs.11,71,800/- (78120x15). Besides this, appellant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium; appellant No.2 to 5 are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium and appellant No.6, mother of deceased, is entitled for Rs.40,000/- for loss of filial consortium. In addition to aforesaid amount, appellants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate. Thus, total amount of compensation for which now appellants-claimants are entitled, comes to Rs.14,41,800/- This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of application till actual payment is made. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount disbursed to appellants pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted from the amount of compensation as awarded above. 14.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/- SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI