1 2025:CGHC:40395 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1018 of 2024 1 - Nirmala Bai Sahu Wd/o Late Thandaram Sahu Aged About 40 Years 2 - Gauri Kumari Sahu D/o Late Thandaram Sahu Aged About 20 Years 3 - Anand Kumar Sahu S/o Late Thandaram Sahu Aged About 18 Years 4 - Nisha Kumari D/o Late Thandaram Sahu Aged About 16 Years 5 - Hema Kumari Sahu D/o Late Thandaram Sahu Aged About 14 Years Minor Through The Mother (Natural Guardian) Appellant No. 01 Nirmala Bai Sahu, 6 - Ganga Bai Sahu Wd/o Madanlal Sahu Aged About 62 Years All are R/o Village Godhna Tahsil And Police Station Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) At Present Ashok Nagar, Police Station Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Appellants versus 1 - Sheet Kumar Patel S/o Malikram Patel Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Semradeeh, Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) At Present Bimal Plant, Saraipali, Police Station Punjipathra, District Raigarh (C.G.) (Driver Of The Vehicle Hydra Crane No. Cg 13 La 1556) 2 - Pro. Ajit Chauhan Vital Refactories Private Limited, Saraipali (C.G.) (Owner Of The Vehicle Hydra Crane No. Cg 13 La 1556) 2 3 - Kuldeep Singh Gochwal R/o House No. K 100/02, Vrindavan Colony, Jindal Road, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) (Policy Holder Owner Of The Vehicle Hydra Crane No. Cg 13 La 1556) 4 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office 2nd Floor, Rama Trade Centre, In Front Of Rajiv Plaza, Near Of Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Insurer Of The Vehicle (Owner Of The Vehicle Hydra Crane No. Cg 13 La 1556) ….Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No.1 to 3 : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 12/08/2025 1. Learned counsel for appellants submits that liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is fastened upon respondent No.4/Insurance Company, which is represented by the counsel, therefore, appeal be heard finally at motion stage. 2. Submission of learned counsel for appellants about liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon respondent No.4 is not opposed by learned counsel for respondent No.4. He submits that he is having no objection if appeal is heard finally. 3. Claimant/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Fourth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (for short ‘the BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.09 10:56:23 +0530 3 Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 21.02.2024 passed in Claim Case No.953/2021 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.15,93,450/- as compensation in a death case. 4. This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Motor accidental injuries suffered by claimant on 14.14.2021, involvement of vehicle Hydra Crane bearing number CG-13-LA-1556 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") owned by non-applicant No. 2 and 3, driven by non-applicant No. 1, non-applicant No. 4 being insurer and liability to satisfy the amount of compensation fastened up non-applicant No. 4 is not in dispute. 5. For the foregoing discussion, this Court is not dealing with the facts of accident as pleaded by the parties in their claim application, reply to the claim application and further adverted in the impugned award but only considering the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties on enhancement of amount of compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that appellants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of amount of compensation on the ground that Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased above 40 years of age as Rs.8,060/- only. He contended that Claims Tribunal have considered the occupation of the deceased as labourer, therefore, the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority and prevailing on the date of accident on 14.04.2021 ought to have taken into consideration, which as per the notification for the period from 01.04.2021 to 30.09.2021 was Rs.9,200/- per month for C- zone area. He next contended that learned Claims Tribunal justified in 4 adding 25% towards future prospects, applied deduction of 1/4 and multiplier of 14, which is correctly applied. He also contended that learned Claims Tribunal has correctly awarded compensation under other conventional head by enhancing the compensation under above heads by 20%. 7. Learned counsel for respondents opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that in absence of proof of income, learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing income of the deceased on notional basis, which does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 9. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellants with regard to assessment of income of the deceased to be not proper is concerned, claimants have pleaded that deceased was doing the work of helper in Bimal Refactories Pvt. Ltd. Saraipali Punjipathara, Raigarh and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, however, there is no clinching and admissible evidence to prove the said pleadings. In the aforementioned facts of the case, learned Claims Tribunal has taken correct step of assessing income of the deceased on notional basis, however, erred in assessing his income as Rs.8,060/- per month only, overlooking the date of accident as 14.04.2021. For assessing the income of the deceased on notional basis, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration, factors like rise in price index, place of resident, date of accident and the wages prevailing at the place where deceased was resident of. The learned Claims Tribunal could have also taken note of minium wages fixed by the competent 5 authority under the Minimum Wages Act for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. 10. In the case at hand, there is no suggesting piece of evidence to prove wages prevailing on the date of accident at the place where the deceased was resident of. Hence, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased treating him to be labourer taking help of the minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for that period. As per notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, minimum wages for the period from 01.04.2021 to 30.09.2021 for unskilled laboure of C-zone area is fixed as Rs.9,200/- per month. Hence, the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.9,200/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 11. There is no dispute with respect to addition of 25% towards future prospects in the assessed income, deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses of deceased and application of multiplier of 14. The learned counsel for the appellants has also not disputed the amount of compensation awarded towards other conventional head. Accordingly, it is affirmed. 12. On the basis of above, compensation awarded needs recomputation, which is as under :- SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Annual income : 9,200 x 12 = 1,10,400.00 2. Addition of 25% towards future prospects : 1,10,400.00 + 27,600 = 1,38,000.00 3. 1/4 deduction towards personal expenses : 1,38,000.00 – 34,500.00 = 1,03,500.00 6 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 14 : 1,03,500 x 14 = 14,49,000.00 5. For loss of spousal, parental and filial consortium to the appellants No.1 to 6 respectively of Rs.48,000/- each (Rs.48,000 x 6) : 2,88,000.00 6. For funeral expenses : 18,000.00 7. For loss of estate : 18,000.00 Grand Total : 17,73,000.00 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellant shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.17,73,000.00. Any amount paid to the appellant as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 14. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram