Page No.1 2025:CGHC:38578 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 429 of 2021 1. Smt. Tameshwari Sahu W/o Late Khemanlal Sahu Aged About 26 Years 2. Ku. Divyanshi Sahu D/o Late Khemanlal Sahu Aged About 7 Years 3. Satyam Sahu S/o Late Khemanlal Sahu Aged About 6 Years 4. Sundruram Sahu S/o Late Bhagwant Sahu Aged About 65 Years 5. Jugbati Sahu W/o Sundruram Sahu Aged About 60 Years Appellant No.2 and 3 Minor through Mother Tameshwari Sahu (Applicant No. 1), All R/o Village And Post Barbaspur P.S. Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1. Sanjay Kumar Sahu S/o Ganeshram Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Rajauli, P.S. Ranchirai, District Balod (CG)- Driver 2. Raman Dewangan S/o Udayram Dewangan R/o Nandai Road, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG) (Registered Owner), 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager Second Floor, Near Gandhi Chowk, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. …..Respondents Page No.2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Mr. Vidya Bhusan Soni, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2 : Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. H.P. Agrawal, Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 23/7/2025 1. This appeal is filed by claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod vide award dated 29.1.2021 in Claim Case No.73/2019. 2. Since the death of deceased in a road traffic accident dated 2.1.2019, involvement of offending vehicle, which is owned by non-applicant No.1, driven by non-applicant No.2 and insured by non-applicant No.3, in said accident is not dispute, therefore, this Court is not adverting to the facts of the case and only considering submissions of learned counsel for respective parties on the question of enhancement of quantum of compensation. 3. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that on the date of accident i.e. 2.1.2019, deceased was working as Driver of Hywa Truck and in support of plea of occupation, claimants have produced copy of driving license of deceased; the book maintained by the driver showing his presence in work place and receipt of amount from the owner of vehicle. Employer/Owner of vehicle namely Mohan Ram Sahu is also examined as AW-3. However, the Claims Tribunal disbelieved the nature of occupation as pleaded as also evidence of the employer AW-3 Page No.3 and assessed income of deceased as Rs.9,000/- only, which could be the income of an unskilled worker. He next contended that the Claims Tribunal though held that all the claimants, who are five in numbers, are entitled for loss of consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each, but awarded a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- only towards loss of consortium. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3- Insurance Company would submit that the Claims Tribunal minutely analyzed the evidence available on record and arrived at a conclusion that claimants failed to prove income of deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month, which cannot be said to be erroneous finding. He next contended that compensation computed and awarded is just and proper. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2 while supporting the impugned award, has adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of learned counsel for respondent No.3. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. As regards the income of deceased, disbelieving the pleadings as well as evidence adduced by claimants to prove income of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal has assessed monthly income of deceased Rs.9,000/- on notional basis, which in the opinion of this Court is on lower side. Claimants have specifically pleaded that deceased was driver of Hywa Truck, produced his driving license as Ex.P-18 which shows that deceased was having license to Page No.4 drive transport vehicle. Mohan Ram Sahu (AW-3) has also stated that deceased was Driver in his Hywa truck. 8. From the above evidence in the opinion of this Court, claimant proved the occupation of deceased as driver of heavy goods vehicle. Hon’ble Supreme Court in its various decisions held that it is in fact the duty of the Tribunal and the appellate court to assess and arrive at a just and reasonable monthly income based on attendant facts. Since the wrok of a driver is a skilled job, this Court is of the opinion that income of deceased can be assessed considering minimum wages fixed for skilled labourer. Date of accident is 2.1.2019 and as per Notification issued for skilled labourer by Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act for skilled labourer for the period from 1.10.2018 to 31.3.2019 of ‘C’ Zone area was Rs.9,570/-. Driver of heavy truck also gets daily allowances for their meals, which is assessed by this Court as Rs.100/- per day and Rs.3,000/- per month. Hence, income of deceased would be Rs.12,570/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 9. Perusal of impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal though held all the five appellants entitle for loss of consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/-, total of which comes to Rs.2,00,000/-, however, while calculating total amount of compensation, only a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- for loss of consortium is added. This mistake is apparently a typographical one, which deserves to be corrected. Accordingly, it is ordered that appellants are entitled for Page No.5 a sum of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of loss of consortium. 10. Deduction made towards personal expenses of deceased and multiplier applied by Claims Tribunal is correct and the same does not call for any interference. Compensation awarded under the head ‘funeral expenses’ and ‘loss of estate’ is also found to be correct. 11.For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants. 12.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.12,570/- per month and after adding 40% towards future prospects, total income comes to Rs.17,598/-. Thus, annual income of deceased for the purpose of calculating compensation comes to Rs.2,11,176/-. Out of this amount, one-fourth is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased and after deducting one-fourth, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,58,382/-. By applying multiplier of 17, as applied by Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency, total loss of dependency would come to Rs.26,92,494/-. Besides this, appellant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium; appellant No.2 to 4 are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each for loss of parental consortium and appellants No.5 is entitled for Rs.40,000/- for filial consortium. They are also entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses. However, as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported Page No.6 in (2017)16 SCC 680, the amount of compensation under the aforesaid heads i.e. loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate, is to be increased @ 10% after every three years, which will make the compensation payable to claimants under the head of loss of consortium as Rs.44,000/- (10% of 40000 + 40000); as there are five claimants including widow, children and parents, therefore, compensation under loss of consortium will be Rs.2,20,000/- (44000x5). Similarly, increase of 10% of the amount of compensation towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, will make the compensation payable to claimants as Rs.16,500/- (10% of 15000 + 15000) under each head. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.29,45,494/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 13.Any amount already paid to claimants/appellants as compensation shall be adjusted from total amount of compensation as calculated above. 14.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/-