1 / 7 2025:CGHC:29036 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 892 of 2020 1. Smt. Rukhmani Dubey W/o Lt. Lakshman Prasad Dubey Aged About 47 Years 2. Rahul Dubey S/o Lt. Lakshman Prasad Dubey Aged About 24 Years 3. Rakesh Dubey S/o Lt. Lakshman Prasad Dubey Aged About 19 Years All are R/o 343-A, Gogaon, Sant Kabirdas Ward No. 3, Suryanagar, Raipur, Police Station Gudhiyari, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants/ Claimants versus 1. Hareram S/o Sudheswar Rai Through Choubraga S/o Khadiya Sahu, R/o Pandgipali, Police Station Sohela, District Bargadh (Orissa). (Driver Of Truck Bearing No. O.D. - 15-C-6364) 2. Choubraga S/o Khadiya Sahu R/o Pandgipali, Police Station Sohela, District Bargadh (Orissa). (Owner Of Truck Bearing No. O.D. 15-C-6364) 3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. G.E. Road Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Truck Bearing No. O.D.-15-C-6364). --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Satyendra Shrivas, Advocate on behlaf of Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. G.V.K. Rao, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 30/06/2025 1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the award dated 05.08.2019 passed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 7 Learned 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 408/2017, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 6,50,800/- as compensation in death case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 24.03.2017 at about 5:00 a.m., near Kalinga Nagar, Gudhiari, under Police Station- Gudhiari, District Raipur, non-applicant no. 1 while driving vehicle truck no. OD 15 C 6364 (henceforth “offending truck”) in a rash and negligent manner, hit motorcycle no. CG 04 CP 7915 riding by Laxman Prasad Dubey, as a result of which Laxman Prasad Dubey suffered fatal injuries and succumbed to those injuries. A report of the accident was lodged in the police station Gudhiyari, Raipur, Chhattisgarh based on which Crime Number 76/17 was registered against non-applicant No.1. 3. Appellants-claimants who are widow and children of deceased filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 52,80,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was about 50 years of age, was an able bodied person. He was the sole earner in the family. At the time of accident he was employed as Supervisor in Gupta Iron Industry and was earning ₹ 19,000/- per month. 4. Respondent No. 1 & 2 / Non-applicant No. 1 & 2 -driver and owner of the offending truck did not appear before the Claims Tribunal even after service of notice and they were proceeded ex parte. However, in the reply submitted by them in the claim proceedings, while denying the adverse pleadings made therein it was further pleaded that applicants have filed the application seeking compensation on false and fabricated grounds and has grossly exaggerated income of deceased. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. On the date of accident, offending truck 3 / 7 was insured with non-applicant No. 3. Hence, the liability, if any, to satisy the amount of compensation would be upon non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company. 5. Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased himself. The applicants have exaggerated the income of the deceased. On the date of accident, non-applicant No. 1/ driver of offending truck was not possessed with a valid and effective driving license and the offending vehicle was being plying without permit and fitness certificate, which is a violation of conditions of insurance policy. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased- Laxman Prasad Dubey died because of grievous injuries suffered by him in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending truck driven by non- applicant No. 1. Contributory negligence on the part of deceased and breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 6,50,800/- as total compensation with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application and fastened liability upon non-applicants jointly and severally. 7. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre amount of compensation against the death of late Laxman Prasad Dubey, husband of appellant no. 1 and father of appellants No. 2 & 3. He contented that the deceased was working under Gupta Iron Industries as Supervisor and earning ₹ 19,000/- per month, however, learned Claims Tribunal has assessed his income as ₹ 6,000/- per month overlooking the evidence of AW-2, which is erroneous. Tribunal erred in adding 10% towards future prospects overlooking the age of deceased 4 / 7 based on the post mortem report to be 50 years. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 in case of deceased between age group between 40 to 50 years there shall be addition of 25% of assessed income; and accordingly the multiplier of 13 instead of 11 has applied by the Claims Tribunal. He lastly contended that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded loss of consortium to all the claimants and prays for suitable enhancement of amount of compensation. 8. Learned counsel or Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellants-claimants and would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper, it does not call for any interference. He submits that the claimants could not be able to prove the wages paid to deceased of ₹ 19,000/- per month by producing documentary evidence, when the employer is running the iron industry, as per his own statement. In absence of clinching piece of evidence in record with respect to proof of income of deceased, Claims Tribunal justified in assessing the income on notional basis. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 10. Sofar as the first ground raised by the counsel for appellants-claimants that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased on lower side, is concerned, claimants in their claim application have pleaded that the deceased was working as Supervisor in Gupta Iron Industry, earning ₹ 19,000/- per month, to prove the said pleading the claimants have examined Shri Damodar Prasad Gupta, Proprietor in M/s Gupta Iron Industries, Telghani Naka, Raipur, as AW-3, in is evidence though he has stated that the deceased was working as Supervisor in his organization and earning ₹ 19,000/- per month, however, he failed to produce any document of his organization including the list of employees, statutory deduction, if any made, 5 / 7 towards the provident fund etc. as also statement of account showing the payment made to the deceased. In absence of any proof of employment or payment of salary of ₹ 19,000/- per month as mentioned in the claim application and stated by the witness AW-2, it cannot be accepted as totally truth. In the aforementioned facts of the case, Claims Tribunal justified in disbelieving the evidence of AW-1 and AW-2 with respect to nature of employment and income of deceased. 11. In the aforementioned facts of the case, Claims Tribunal justified in assessing the occupation of deceased to one of the unskilled labourer. However, Claims Tribunal fell into error in assessing income of deceased as ₹ 6,000/- per month only. In the facts of the case where the claimants failed to prove nature of occupation, income of deceased, Tribunal ought to have considered notional income of deceased taking note of the factors like date of accident, age of deceased, wage structure, price index etc. In the case at hand, there is no material to suggest the wages prevailing within Raipur City to be paid by the employer and, therefore, I find it appropriate to assess income of deceased taking note of minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act and prevailing on the date of accident. According to the notification issued by the competent authority, the minimum wages for an unskilled laborer for the period from 01.10.2017 to 31.03.2018 is ₹ 7,930/- per month and therefore I find it appropriate for assess income of deceased as ₹ 7,930/- per month for the purpose of calculating the total income of deceased on the date of accident. It is ordered accordingly. Tribunal by doing the guess work assessed the age of deceased to be more than 50 years. In the post-mortem report, Ext. P-6, age of deceased is mentioned as 50 years. It is not by assessing age through any scientific method. Hence, the age assessed by the Tribunal to be above 50 years is not sustainable and it is set aside. It is held that age of the deceased to be not above 50 years. In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) it is held that there 6 / 7 shall be addition of 25% of assessed income where the deceased was aged between 40 to 50 years. Claims Tribunal erred in adding only 10% of the assessed income towards loss of future prospects which is not sustainable and accordingly it is held that there shall be addition of 25% of the assessed income towards future prospects. Claims Tribunal has correctly applied the deduction of 1/3 but fell into error in applying the multiplier of 11. As this court has held the age of deceased in between 45-50 years, therefore according to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, there shall be application of multiplier of 13. It is ordered accordingly. Claims Tribunal has correctly awarded sum of ₹ 15,000/- each under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses and further awarded ₹ 40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium to appellant No. 1 only. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, appellants No. 2 and 3 are also entitled for loss of parental consortium of ₹ 40,000/- each. 12. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires recomputation, which is as under. Particulars Compensation A) Annual Loss of income/ dependency = ₹ 95,160/- (₹ 7930x12) B) Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 25% (₹ 95,160 + 25% of ₹ 95,160 = ₹ 1,18,950) C) Deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses (₹ 1,18,950 x 1/3= ₹ 39,650); ₹ 1,21,500 - ₹ 39,650 = ₹ 79,300/- D) Multiplier of 13 ₹ 79,300 x 13 = ₹ 10,30,900/- ₹ 10,30,900/- Loss of Spousal Consortium to Appellant No. 1 ₹ 40,000/- 7 / 7 Loss of parental consortium to Appellants No. 2 & 3 (₹ 40,000 each) ₹ 80,000/- Loss of estate ₹ 15,000/- Funeral Expenses ₹ 15,000/- Total ₹ 11,80,900/- 13. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 11,80,900/- instead of ₹ 6,50,800/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount paid to the appellants-claimants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 14. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn