1 2025:CGHC:31639 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 927 of 2019 1. Dev Singh Pradhan S/o Late Rati Ram Aged About 48 Years 2. Smt. Dheer Bai W/o Dev Singh Pradhan Aged About 47 Years 3. Ku. Satya Pradhan D/o Dev Singh Pradhan Aged About 17 Years 4. Ku. Ragani Pradhan D/o Dev Singh Pradhan Aged About 14 Years 5. Amit Pradhan S/o Dev Singh Pradhan Aged About 12 Years All R/o Bannakdih Thana Sirgitty Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (CG) ... Appellants-claimants versus 1. Koushal Namdev S/o Maniram Namdev Aged About 24 Years R/o 83 Village Panchayat Kapa Indrana Manjho Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh.............(Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Bus No. Cg.04/e/1903)...............Driver, 2. Rajendra Kumar Soni S/o C.P. Soni Aged About 42 Years R/o Rajkishor Nagar Thana Sarkanda Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.............(Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Bus No. Cg.04/e./1903).........(Owner) 3. Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Rama Tred Center 2nd Floor Rajeev Plaja Near- Old Bus Stand Bilaspur, Thana Civil Line Tahsil And 2 District- Bilaspur (CG) ..........(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Bus No. Cg.04/e/1903) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Shalini Jhangel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.L.Singraul, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 & 2 : None For Respondent No.3 : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 9/7/2025 1. Learned counsel for appellants submits that the Claims Tribunal has fastened liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the respondents, jointly and severally, but first liability to pay the amount of compensation is upon the insurance company being the insurer of offending vehicle. Therefore, this appeal may be heard finally at motion stage. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 insurance company on instructions, submits that he has no objection if the appeal is decided finally. 3. With consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 4. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned 6th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 15.2.2019 in Claim Case No.265/2018 for the death of deceased Suraj Pradhan in a road traffic accident. 5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that appellant filed an 3 application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.45,00,000/- under various heads, for death of Suraj Pradhan in a motor vehicular accident. According to claimants, who are parents and siblings of deceased, on 28.1.2018 at about 10:30 a.m. when Suraj Pradhan was returning to his home situated in Bannakdih, Bilaspur on motorcycle, on the way near Manokamana Rice Mill, Matiyari the Bus bearing CG04-E-1903, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver (non-applicant No.1), dashed his motorcycle as a result Suraj Pradhan sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. It was pleaded in application that at the time of accident, deceased was 18 years of age, he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month by running a hotel. 6. Non-applicant No.1 and 2, driver and owner of offending motorcycle did not appear before the Claims Tribunal and therefore they were proceeded ex-parte. 7. Non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company filed its reply to application denying the factum of accident from the offending vehicle. It was further pleaded that accident occurred due to negligence of deceased himself. On the date of accident, driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence; there was no valid permit and fitness 4 certificate in favour of offending vehicle and, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 8. 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 offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1 which resulted in death of deceased; disbelieved version of claimants that deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by running a hotel observing that claimant failed to prove the occupation and income of deceased by placing any documentary evidence in that regard. It was also held that there was no element of contributory negligence and violation of any of the conditions of insurance policy. Consequently, the Claims Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded compensation of Rs.8,16,240/- and fastened liability upon the non-applicants, jointly and severally, to satisfy the award. 9. Learned counsel for claimants/appellants submits that income of deceased has not been properly assessed by the Claims Tribunal. She submits that the Claims Tribunal has mentioned that in absence of documentary proof of occupation and income of deceased, his income is to be assessed on the basis of prevalent minimum wage rate but failed to mention the period during which minimum wage of an unskilled worker was Rs.6,000/- per month. She next contended that learned 5 Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding amount towards loss of consortium to all the dependent family members of deceased. Therefore, he prays that amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents supporting the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused record of claim case including impugned award. 12. So far as income of the deceased is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has assessed income of deceased at Rs.5,200/- per month stating it to be wage rate prevalent for an unskilled labourer, but there is no mention in the impugned award as to at what period of time said rate was notified by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for an unskilled labourer of the ‘B’ zone area. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal erred in fixing monthly income of deceased as Rs.5,200/- per month. The accident occurred on 28.1.2018 and deceased was resident of District Bilaspur, which comes within the category of ‘B’ Zone, therefore, considering the minimum wage rate prescribed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for an unskilled labour Zone ‘B’ category, for the period from 6 01.10.2017 to 31.3.2018, the income of the deceased is fixed as Rs.7,930/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 13. Considering that the deceased was below 40 years of age and he was a bachelor, addition of 40% future prospects to the assessed income of deceased; deduction of one-half towards personal expenses of deceased and multiplier of 18 applied by the Claims Tribunal to assess the loss of dependency as well as award of Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, is in consonance with the law in this regard and the same need no interference. 14. Perusal of impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for 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/husband, children and parents of a victim who died in a road traffic accident are entitled for consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each under the head spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium. Hence, the claimants/ appellants herein being the parents of the deceased are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each for loss of filial consortium. However, appellant Nos.3 to 5 being the minor sisters and brother of deceased are not entitled for compensation under the head of consortium. It is ordered 7 accordingly. 15.For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants. 16.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.7,930/- per month and after adding 40% towards future prospects, monthly income of deceased would come to Rs.11,102/- and annual income would be Rs.1,33,224/-. Out of this amount, one-half 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.66,612/-. Applying multiplier of 18, as applied by Claims Tribunal, the loss of dependency would be Rs.11,99,016/- (66612 x18). Besides this, appellant No.1 and 2 being parents of deceased are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards 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.13,09,016/- This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% 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 8 compensation as awarded above. 17.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