-1- 2025:CGHC:29720 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 939 of 2020 1 - Shital Bai Dhanwar (Dhanuhar) W/o Late Raj Kumar Aged About 28 Years 2 - Umesh Dhanwar (Dhanuhar) S/o Late Raj Kumar Aged About 10 3 - Ku. Dhaneshwari Dhanwar (Dhanuhar) D/o Late Raj Kumar Aged About 8 Years 4 - Ku. Uma Dhanwar (Dhanuhar) D/o Late Raj Kumar Aged About 6 Years 5 - Amar Dhanwar (Dhanuhar) S/o Late Raj Kumar Aged About 4 Years 6 - Etwarin Bai Dhanwar (Dhanuhar) W/o Late Bhim Prasad Aged About 55 Years Appellants No. 2 to 5 are minor through legal Guardian Mother Smt. Shital Bai Dhanwar (Dhanuhar) W/o Raj Kumar All R/o Lalkhadan, Thana Torwa, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Ghuruwa Chouhan S/o Chaituram Chouhan Aged About 55 Years R/o Saragbundiya, Thana Urga, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh ...........(Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Trailer C. G. No. 12/S/2676) 2 - Kamlesh Kumar Mishra S/o Bhagwati Prasad Mishra R/o Village Semipali, Post Kudurmall, Urga, Thana Urga, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh ...........(Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Trailer C. G. No. 12/S/2676) 3 - Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Maruti Heights Next To Sky Automobiles G. E. Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh....................(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Trailer C. G. No. 12/S/2676) ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.07.11 10:40:45 +0530 -2- __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate with Ms. Shaleeni Jangde, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None appears though served For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 02/07/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally. 2. This is the claimants’ appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned VIII Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG) vide award dated 08.01.2020 passed in Claim Case No.15 of 2019. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 10.12.2018 Rajkumar Dhanwar was going from Akaltara to Amartal with his friend Ajay Suryavanshi on his motorcycle driving his motorcycle carefully on his side. When he reached near Amartal located on the four lane, at that time, the driver (non-applicant No.1) of the vehicle trailer No.CG- 12-S/2676, driving the trailer rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle driven by Rajkumar Dhanwar with great force due to which Rajkumar Dhanwar and Ajay Suryavanshi riding on the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries and Rajkumar Dhanwar died on the spot. On the date of accident, deceased Rajkumar Dhanwar was only 34 years old, was physically and mentally healthy and was earning regular and fixed income of Rs. 15,000/- per month by working as a driver, with -3- which he was maintaining himself and his family. Due to the sudden death of Rajkumar Dhanwar in a motor accident, the applicants/claimants have been deprived of his income. They prayed for grant of total compensation of Rs. 44,13,000/- under different heads from non-applicants. 4. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 in their written statement have pleaded they have no information regarding the accidental death of the deceased Rajkumar Dhanwar, his income, residence and his relationship with the applicants. The alleged vehicle trailer No. CG-12- S/2676 has not caused any accident. The vehicle trailer has been insured with non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company bearing all the risks arising out of motor accidents. Hence, if the Court passes an award in favour of the applicants in respect of any compensation amount, then in such a situation, the liability to pay compensation amount will be of non-applicant No.3/ insurance company. 5. Non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company in its written statement pleaded that no motor accident occurred with offending vehicle. Deceased Rajkumar Dhanwar himself is responsible for the said accident. He was driving his motorcycle at high speed, carelessly violating the traffic rules by not maintaining sufficient distance. On the date of the accident, non-applicant No.1 did not have any license to drive a heavy vehicle and the vehicle did not have permit and fitness certificate, in absence of which, the insurance company is not liable to pay amount of compensation. Principle of contributory negligence is also attracted in the case, therefore, claim application against non- applicant No.3 be dismissed. -4- 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which Rajkumar Dhanwar suffered grievous injuries and died. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found proved, learned Claims Tribunal held non-applicants liable to pay the amount of compensation. Assessing income of the appellant/claimant as Rs.7046/- per month, calculated amount of compensation under different heads and awarded Rs.14,90,480/ - as compensation. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded meager amount of compensation. Income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs.7046/- per month only which in the fact of case is on lower side. He also contended that amount of compensation under head ‘loss of consortium’ is also on lower side. Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head of ‘loss of consortium’ to all the three appellants/claimants but has awarded loss of consortium to appellant/claimant No.1 only. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and would submit that amount of compensation as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal, in the facts of the case, is just and proper. Claimants have failed to prove nature of occupation as also income of deceased as pleaded in the claim application. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of the claim case. -5- 10. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants with regard to assessment of income as Rs.7,046/- per month by the Claims Tribunal is concerned, date of accident is 10.12.2018. In the claim application, claimants have pleaded the occupation of deceased as driver and his income to be Rs.15,000/- per month. True it is that claimants have failed to prove income of deceased by placing admissible piece of evidence, however, in absence of admissible piece of evidence, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of deceased considering the other factors like cost of living, price index, wage rates structure and also minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act for ‘unskilled labourer’ prevailing on the date of accident. 11. For the purpose of assessing income of deceased on notional basis in absence of any specific evidence, this Court finds it appropriate to take help of the Notification issued by the Commissioner-cum- Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. In the Notification for ‘Class-B zone/area’ monthly income for ‘unskilled labourer’ for the period from 01.10.2018 to 31.03.2019, has been fixed as Rs.8060/- per month. Hence, looking to the date of accident i.e. 10.12.2018, income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.8060/- per month instead of Rs.7046/- per month as held by learned Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. 12. Learned Tribunal, looking the age of the deceased on the date of accident to be 34 years, has rightly added 40% of the assessed income towards loss of future prospects. Looking to the number of dependents, as such, learned Tribunal has also rightly made -6- deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses of deceased in tune of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121. 13. Learned Claims Tribunal looking to the age of deceased as 34 years, has correctly applied multiplier of 16. Tribunal has further correctly awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- only to appellant/claimant No.1 towards ‘loss of spousal consortium’. However, learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of loss of consortium to claimants No. 2 to 5 who are children and claimant No.6 who is mother of deceased. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130, appellants/claimants No. 2 to 5 being children of deceased will be entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head ‘loss of parental consortium’ and claimant/appellant No.6 being mother of the deceased will be entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards ‘loss of filial consortium’. It is ordered accordingly. 14. For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. (A) Loss of Income/dependency 8060 x 12 = 96720 (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 40% (96720 x 40% =38688) : Rs. 16,24,896 -7- 96720+ 38688 = 1,35,408 (C) Deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses (1,35,408 x 1/4= 33852) 1,35,408 - 33852 = 101556/-- (D) Multiplier of 16 101556 x 16= 16,24,896 2. Funeral Expenses : (+) Rs. 15,000 3. Loss of Estate : (+) Rs. 15,000 4. Spousal Consortium to claimant/appellant No.1 (wife) : (+) Rs. 40,000 5. Loss of parental consortium to claimants/appellants No. 2 to 5 (children) @ 40,000/- each (+) Rs. 1,60,000 6. Loss of filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- to claimant/appellant No.6 (mother) : (+) Rs. 40,000 Total compensation Rs. 18,94,896 15. Now the appellant/claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs. 18,94,896/- instead of Rs.14,90,480/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 16. Aforementioned total amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 17. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen