Page No.1 2025:CGHC:19830 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 908 of 2020 1 - Mu. Dudo Bai Wife Of Late Chandro Ram Aged About 55 Years Caste Mahkul, Resident Of Village Mudekela, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District:Jashpur,Chhattisgarh.. 2 - Madhusudan Ram Son Of Late Chandro Ram Aged About 30 Years Caste Mahkul, Resident Of Village Mudekela, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Baldev Ekka Son Of Budhram Ekka Aged About 35 Years Caste Uraon, Resident Of Mahrani Deurpara, P.S. Sitapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur),Chhattisgarh 2 - M/s Kandoi Transport Ltd. Anpara Sonbhadra 231225 (Uttar Pradesh),District:Sonbhadra,UttarPradesh. 3 - Branch Manager H.D.F.C. Irgo General Insurance Company Ltd., Katak (Orissa) Chhattisgarh State Office 3rd Floor, Chawla Complex Devendra Nagar Road, Sai Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) _________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 01/05/2025 1. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1 & 2, though served. NISHA DUBEY Digitally signed by NISHA DUBEY Page No.2 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at admission stage. 3. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal challenging the award dated 09.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathalgaon, District-Jashpur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.14/2019 whereby the Claims Tribunal allowed claim application of claimants in part and awarded compensation of Rs.07,50,400/- to claimants/appellants herein along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application, in a fatal accident case. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 07.04.2015 at 20:15 p.m., Netram @ Netra Yadav was near Pratapgarh Pasari Nala. At the same time, non-applicant company-1 caused an accident by driving the truck bearing registration No.UP 64-T/4272 rashly and carelessly and the deceased Netram @ Netra Yadav suffered crushed injury, he was taken to Ambikapur Hospital for treatment, where he died during treatment. 5. Claimants/appellants herein filed an application claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.27,90,000/- under various heads on the ground that on the date of accident, deceased was working as JCB Driver, earning Rs.12,000/- per month and they were dependent on earning of deceased. 6. Non-applicant No.1 & 2 did not appear before the Claims Tribunal and therefore, they were proceeded exparte. Page No.3 7. Non-Applicant No.3 Insurance Company filed its separate reply and denied averments made in claim application. In the reply, it has been additionally pleaded that the driver of offending vehicle i.e. truck bearing registration No. UP 64 T/4272, did not have an effective license at the time of accident and driving license presented by him before the Claims Tribunal was not issued by the RTO Raigarh and thus it is clear that the said driving license is fake. In such a situation, the insurance company has no responsibility to compensate for the death of Netram @ Netra Yadav as a result of the accident caused by the vehicle driven by the driver non-applicant No.1. On the date of accident, the vehicle was being driven in violation of the conditions of insurance policy and there was no effective permit and fitness of the vehicle on the date of accident and there is no mention in the documents in what capacity the deceased was riding in the truck at the time of the accident and where he was going. 8. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the pleadings and evidence placed on record (oral and documentary both) by the respective parties, partly allowed claim application and awarded compensation Rs.7,50,400/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. by assessing monthly income of deceased on notional basis at Rs.4,500/- per month. The Claims Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, fastened liability to satisfy the award Page No.4 upon respondent No.3/Insurance Company. 9. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submits that the claimants in their evidence have specifically stated that on the date of accident, deceased was working as Laborer and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. However, the Claims Tribunal had not assessed income of deceased accordingly. He further argued that the amount awarded under other conventional heads is also on lower side. In these circumstances, he prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation suitably. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent has supported the impugned award and submitted that the claimants failed to bring on record any documentary evidence establishing occupation and income of deceased as pleaded and stated by them. In absence thereof, the Claims Tribunal justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. He further submits that amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in the given facts and circumstances of case is just and proper and it does not call for any interference. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12.Perusal of the record would show that in claim application, the occupation of deceased is mentioned as Laborer and his monthly income to be Rs.5,000/-. During course of recording of evidence, the claimants have examined Shyam Narayan Dubey(AW-2), who in his evidence has stated that deceased was working as Driver of his JCB motor vehicle. However, in cross-examination Page No.5 he admitted that he was a tax payer, but has not produced the attendance register or the salary register. He further admitted that he is not aware as to whether the deceased was possessing the license to drive the JCB motor vehicle or not. He has also not produced the copy of accounts to show that he was paying the wages/salary of Rs.12,000/- per month to the deceased. Under these circumstances, the Claims Tribunal justified in assessing the income of deceased on notional basis. In cases where documentary evidence is not produced prove income of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal should treat the deceased to be a labourer and determine his income on the basis of wage rate prevailing in area, price index, cost of living or can take help of the wage rate notified under the Minimum Wages Act. In case at hand, the Claims Tribunal, on guess work assessed income of deceased to be Rs.4,500/- per month and did not resort to circulars/ notifications issued by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 notifying wage rate for skilled, unskilled and highly skilled workers and therefore, fixation of income of deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month by learned Claims Tribunal is not proper. 13.Deceased was resident of District Jashpur, which comes within the category of ‘C’ grade. Date of accident is 7.4.2015. As per Schedule ‘B’ issued by the Labour Commissioner-cum- Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Raipur notifying minimum wage for the unskilled, semi-skilled, Page No.6 skilled and high skilled workers of Grade-C area for the period from 1.4.2015 to 30.9.2015, would show that minimum wage notified for a unskilled worker is Rs.5,787/- per month. Hence, the Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed notional income of deceased atleast at Rs.5,000/- per month, as pleaded and stated by claimants. Thus, considering minimum wage rate prevailing for unskilled worker on the date of accident in District Jashpur, which is a ‘C’ grade area and further considering the income pleaded in application by claimants, I am of the view that income of deceased can be fixed at Rs.5,000/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 14.Learned Claims Tribunal while calculating loss of dependency has added 40% of assessed income of deceased towards future prospects, deducted 50% towards personal expenses of deceased, who was bachelor, and applied multiplier of 18, which are in consonance with the settled law and therefore, does not call for any interference. Award of compensation of Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses is also correct. Learned Claims Tribunal has correctly awarded amount of Rs.40,000/- to appellant No.1/Claimant No.1, mother of deceased, and not awarded any compensation for loss of consortium to appellant No.2, major brother of deceased. 15.For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants. Page No.7 16.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.5000/- per month and after adding 40% towards future prospects, monthly income of deceased would come to Rs.7000/- (5000+2000) and annual income would be Rs.84,000/-. Out of this amount, one- half is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased, who was bachelor on the date of accident, and after deducting one-half, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.42,000/-. Applying multiplier of 18, as applied by Claims Tribunal, the loss of dependency would be Rs.7,56,000/- (42000x18). Besides this, appellant No.1 mother of deceased is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram (supra). 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 comes to Rs.8,26,000/- (7,56,000 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000) recoverable from the respondents, jointly and severally. This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of application till actual payment is made. 17.Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount disbursed to appellant pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted from the amount of compensation as awarded above. Page No.8 18.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 Nisha