1 2025:CGHC:26969 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1095 of 2019 Smt. Annu W/o Late Shri Santkumar Nirmalkar Aged About 22 Years D/o Bhagirathi, R/o Kodwabani, Police Station Lalpur District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1 - Dharmendra Singh S/o Shri Bhagirathi Kushwaha Aged About 46 Years R/o H.No. 370, Krishak Nagar Jora, Raipur, P.S. Telibandha, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ----(Driver /owner Of The Offending Vehicle Bearing Reg. No. Cg 04 Hy 3490) 2 - Branch Manager Through The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Taha Complex, First Floor, Vyapar Vihar Road Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---(Insurer Of The Truck Bearing Reg. No. Cg 04 Hy 3490) 3 - Sahaslal S/o Nankiram Nirmalkar Aged About 57 Years 4 - Saamkunwar W/o Sahaslal Nirmalkar Aged About 50 Years 5 - Sanat Kumar S/o Sahaslal Nirmalkar Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Of Res. No. 1 Sahaslal Nirmalkar, No.3 to 5 all are R/o Rajak Mohalla, Ward No.06, Mangla, P.S. Civil Line Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ….Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate For Respondents No.3 to 5 : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 23/06/2025 1. Non-applicant No.3/appellant has 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 Additional 2 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 28.11.2018 passed in Claim Case No.662/2017 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.17,68,606/- as compensation in a death case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that claimants/respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming total compensation of Rs.54,00,000/- under different heads on account of the death of Santkumar Nirmalkar, who died in the road accident pleading therein that on 28.08.2017 at about 7.10 o’clock, Santkumar was returning from his in-laws house at village Kodwabani to his house at Mangala, Bilaspur, when he reached near village Jarhagaon at the same time, non-applicant No.1 while driving the offending truck in rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor cycle being driven by Santram Nirmalkar, due to which he suffered severe injuries on head, chest, waist, back, hands and leg. He was immediately taken to District Hospital, Mungeli where he was declared dead. It was pleaded that on the date of accident deceased Santram Nirmalkar was 27 years of healthy man, was working as salesman in Jaidev Medical Agency and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that due to his untimely death, the claimants suffered irreparable loss. 3. The non-applicants No.1 filed reply to the claim application and resisted the claim of the claimants. It was pleaded that the accident occurred due to self negligence of the deceased himself. On the date of accident, he was having valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle and the offending vehicle was duly insured with 3 non-applicant No.2. The non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company also denied the pleadings in the claim application. It was pleaded that deceased was driving the motor cycle rashly which resulted into accident. It was also pleaded that non-applicant No.1 was not having any valid and effective driving license and the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of conditions of insurance policy. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal after appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.17,68,606/-. 5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant was widow of the deceased Sant Kumar Nirmalkar. After motor accidental death of her husband, her in-laws have filed claim case impleading her as non- applicant therein. She contested the claim, however, learned Claims Tribunal while erroneously assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.7930/- per month, overlooking the pleadings and the evidence brought on record to prove the nature of occupation and income, has computed the amount of compensation and awarded 60% of the total compensation to the appellant/non-applicant No.3, widow of the deceased. It is contention of learned counsel for the appellant that in the facts of the case where her father-in-law was of 57 years and mother in laws was 50 years of age, they could not have been awarded 40% of the total compensation. Treating only mother to be dependent upon the deceased, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have apportioned the amount of compensation to the extent of 25% for claimant/respondent No. 3 to 5 and 75% for appellant/non-applicant 4 No.3, widow of the deceased. The learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded sufficient amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the amount of compensation awarded is just and proper in the facts of the case, hence, it does not call for any interference. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 to 5 submits that the claimants/respondent No.3 and 4 are old aged person and on the date of accident, brother of the deceased was also dependent upon the income of the deceased. Therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal justified in apportioning and awarding 40% of the total compensation to the claimants/respondents No.3 to 5. Hence, it does not call for any interference. He however supports the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of compensation. 8. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 9. From perusal of the claim application would show that the claimants are father in law, mother in law and brother in law of the appellant/non- applicant No.3. Appellant is widow of the deceased Sant Kumar Nirmalkar. She has been impleaded as non-applicant No.3 in the claim application. Non-applicant No.3, widow of the deceased has further submitted reply to the claim application and denied the pleading that the claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased. It 5 was further pleaded that after marriage, deceased Sant Kumar Nirmalkar along with the non-applicant No.3 was residing in different village i.e. Village Kodwabani, P.S. Lalpur, District Mungeli. 10. Admittedly, the deceased, Sant Kumar Nirmalkar, was the son of applicants No. 1 and 2. A son has a responsibility and moral obligation towards his parents not necessarily during their younger years, but certainly in the later stages of their lives when they become old and infirm. During his lifetime, the deceased, being their son, could have provided care and support to his aged parents. However, in the present case, the claimants have lost their young son. The appellant/non-applicant No.3 herein is the widow of the deceased, aged only about 22 years. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the apportionment of compensation of 60% to non-applicant No. 3 (the appellant herein), and 40% to the claimants, who are father, mother and minor brother of deceased respectively. 11. So far as the enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is concerned, the claimants though have pleaded the occupation of the deceased as salesman in Jaidev Medical Agency and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Claimants in support of the aforementioned facts pleaded, have examined Sahaslal Nirmalkar as (A.W.-1), who is father of the deceased. Sunil Banchhor is examined as (A.W.-2) to prove the engagement of the deceased with the Jaidev Medical Agency. In his evidence, he stated that he was being paid Rs.10,000/- per month as salary, however this witness has not produced any document to show that deceased was being paid 6 Rs.10,000/- per month as salary. Neither the register, if any, maintained in this regard was produced before the tribunal. Except the oral statement of the aforementioned two witnesses, there is no clinching evidence brought on record by the claimants to prove the nature of occupation and income of the deceased, hence, in the aforementioned facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Claims Tribunal justified in disbelieving the evidence of the witnesses with regard to engagement of the deceased as salesman in Jaidev Medical Agency and his income from it The learned Claims Tribunal in the aforementioned facts of the case and in absence of the proof of nature of occupation and income has rightly decided to assess the income of the deceased on notional basis. The learned Claims Tribunal for assessing the income of the deceased on notional basis has taken note of minimum wages fixed by the competent authority prevailing on the date of accident for the unskilled labour as Rs.7,930/- which in the opinion of this Court also cannot be said to be erroneous, therefore, the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal with regard to nature of occupation and income is affirmed. 12. The learned Claims Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased to be less than 40 years. The learned Claims Tribunal relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has correctly made addition of 40% of the assessed income to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, applied the deduction of 1/4 towards personal living expenses and applied 7 multiplier of 17, which is also correct and it does not call for any interference. 13. Learned Claims Tribunal further awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Though compensation of Rs.40,000/- has been awarded under the head of loss of consortium, however, it is not mentioned as to whom the said Rs.40,000/- is awarded. Even if the amount of compensation of Rs.40,000/- is awarded to the wife/widow of the deceased towards loss of spousal consortium, then also, the Claimants No.1 and 2, who are parents of the deceased would be entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. It is ordered accordingly. 14. On the basis of above, the compensation calculated by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Annual income : 7,930 x 12 = 95,160.00 2. Addition of 40% towards future prospects : 95,160.00 + 38,064.00 = 1,33,224.00 3. 1/4 deduction towards personal expenses : 1,33,224.00 – 33,306.00= 99,918.00 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 17 : 99,918 x 17 = 16,98,606.00 5. For loss of parental and spousal consortium to the claimants No.1 & 2 and non- applicant No.4 of Rs.40,000/- each (40,000 x 3) : 1,20,000.00 6. For funeral expenses : 15,000.00 8 7. For loss of estate : 15,000.00 Grand Total : 18,48,606.00 15. So far as the submission of counsel for appellant about apportionment of the compensation awarded, the claim application was filed by parents who have lost their major son. Under the Indian culture it is the son who takes care of his old aged parents when they became infirm. Considering the Indian culture, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the apportionment of award by the Tribunal in its award accordingly, the submission of the counsel for appellant that apportionment of compensation between claimant No.1 & 2 (parents) and the non-applicant No.3 to be erroneous is not sustainable hence, it is repelled. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellant/non- applicant No.3 and claimants/respondents No.3 to 5 shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.18,48,606.00. Any amount paid to the appellants as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 17. 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 9