1 2025:CGHC:25571 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1148 of 2019 1 - Smt. Bhuri W/o Shamshad Hussain Aged About 48 Years R/o Amapara, Mohan Nagar, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shamshad Hussain S/o Late Chhote Khan Aged About 50 Years R/o Amapara, Mohan Nagar, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Gulnaj D/o Shamshad Hussain Aged About 12 Years Minor, Represented Through Father And Legal Guardian Shamshad Hussain, R/o Amapara, Mohan Nagar, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Farhan D/o Shamshad Hussain Aged About 10 Years Minor, Represented Through Father And Legal Guardian Shamshad Hussain, R/o Amapara, Mohan Nagar, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ku. Ujma D/o Shamshad Hussain Aged About 8 Years Minor, Represented Through Father And Legal Guardian Shamshad Hussain, R/o Amapara, Mohan Nagar, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants Versus 1 - Vijay Kumar Nagtode S/o Khemraj Nagtode Aged About 60 Years R/o D-1anand Vihar, Near Gulmohar Vatika, Mahaveer Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur Chhattisgarh........(Driver And Owner Of Vehicle Car No. C. G. -04-Hb- 8502), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2 - National Insurance Company Limited Mobin Mahal, G. E. Road, Raipur Through Branch Manager, Akashganga, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh......... (Insurer), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Appellants SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 For Appellants : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate For Non-Appellant No. 2 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 19/06/2025 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 28.01.2019 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 184/2017. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 07.02.2017 at about 08:30 A.M., Md. Mumtaz (since deceased) along with his friend namely Manish was traveling towards Rajnandgaon from G.E. Road, Dug on his motor cycle bearing registration no. CG 07 LR 9070 and reached near Village Bhanbhedi, G.E. Road No. 6, at that time, the offending car bearing registration no. CG 04 HB 8502 which was being driven by the Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of Md. Mumtaz from behind and caused accident. In the said accident, deceased Md. Mumtaz suffered serious injuries and he was taken to District Medical College, Rajnandgaon, from there, he was referred to B.S.R. Apollo Hospital, Bhilai and thereafter to Mekahara Hospital, Raipur. Subsequent to the said accident, an FIR was registered against the Respondent No. 1 bearing Crime No. 55/2017, P.S. Lalbagh, District - Rajnandgaon for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal though had allowed the claim application in part and awarded 3 a total sum of Rs. 12,50,100/-, however, the learned Claims Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased on lower side overlooking the nature of occupation with which the deceased was engaged in, on the date of accident i.e. the selling of garments/clothes, not awarding the sufficient amount of compensation under the other conventional heads including the compensation under the loss of consortium. He submits that the deceased met with an accident on 07.02.2017 and from the said date, he was under continuous treatment as impatient in the B.S.R. Apollo Hospital, Bhilai and thereafter, in Mekahara Hospital, Raipur, and died on 16.03.2017, however, the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded the amount of compensation towards the expenses incurred by the claimants towards special diet, conveyance expenses and attendant. On above grounds, he prayed for enhancement of the amount of compensation suitably. He also contended that as the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is joint and several upon the Non-Appellant No. 1 & 2 and the counsel for the Non-Appellant No. 2/Insurance Company has caused his appearance, this case may be heard finally at the motion stage. 4. On the other hand, learned counsels for the Non-appellants No. 2 /Insurance Company opposes the submission of counsel for the appellant/claimant with regard to, the less amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal and would submit that the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper in the facts of the case and does not call for any interference. He however, do not dispute the submission of the counsel for the applicant with respect to the fastening of joint and several liability upon the Respondents No. 1 & 2 and the first liability to satisfy 4 the amount of compensation upon the Respondent No. 2/Insurance Company as on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case and the copy of the award passed. 6. So far as the submission of counsel for the appellant with respect to the assessment of income of the deceased is concerned, the claimants have not filed any document to show the nature of business with which the claimant as stated to be doing at the time of accident i.e. the purchase and sale of cloths. They have only filed one typed certificate on a plain paper under the signature of one Md. Nazir @ Nazir (AW- 3) with a seal mentioning him as a proprietor of a cloth shop and mentioning the income of the deceased as Rs. 12,000/- per month. 7. The claimant to prove the pleadings made in the claim application has examined Shamshad Hussain i.e. the Appellant No. 2 who is stated to be the father of the deceased. The claimants though have examined Md. Shamshad Hussain before the learned Claims Tribunal at the time of registration of the claim case, however, this witnesses was not examined thereafter before the learned Claims Tribunal at the time of deciding of the claim case on merits. One Manish Kumar Kaushal is examined as AW-1. In examination-in-chief, he submitted an affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908. From the contents of the affidavit, it is appearing that the he is the witness to the incident. In the examination-in-chief, he has not stated anything with regard to the nature of business and income of the deceased. 8. Further, Smt. Bhuri Bai i.e. the Appellant No. 1/Claimant No. 1 (mother of the deceased) is examined as AW-2. Though, this witness has pleaded about the nature of the engagement of deceased as ‘in 5 business of cloth selling and earning Rs. 12,000/- per month’, however, no admissible piece of evidence or documentary evidence has been placed on record. The claimants have further examined Md. Nazir @ Nazir (AW- 3) to prove the nature of occupation with which the deceased was engaged in and the earning of Rs. 12,000/- per month. This witness has stated that the deceased was engaged by him as worker/employee and he was being paid Rs. 400/- per day. The pleadings made in the claim application, the evidence of Appellant No. 1/Claimant No. 1 mother of the deceased is that her son was doing the business by purchasing clothes and selling it in the market. The evidence of Md. Nazir @ Nazir (AW- 3) is that deceased was working as Salesman under him. In view of the aforementioned evidence available on record is non-reliable an accordingly, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the evidence of Md. Nazir @ Nazir (AW- 3). 9. From the aforementioned discussion, it is apparent that the claimants failed to prove the nature of occupation and the income of the deceased by placing admissible piece of evidence. The learned Claims Tribunal has rightly decided to assess the income of the deceased on notional basis. However, the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income as Rs. 6000/- which is on lower side. For the purpose of assessing the income of a claimant/deceased on notional basis, the learned Claims Tribunal/Courts are required to take into consideration the factors like age of the claimant/deceased, date of accident, price index, cost of living, wage structure prevailing within the place in which, the deceased was residing and can also take the help of the minimum- wages fixed by the competent authority and prevailing within the period 6 of accident. The deceased was a resident of Durg City of Chhattisgarh. It is also an industrial city according to the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the year 2017-18. The minimum wages fixed for the Unskilled Labourer for ‘B’ Zone cities is Rs. 8060/- per month. As the occupation of the deceased could not be proved, therefore, I find it appropriate to consider the occupation of the deceased to be of the Unskilled Labourer and hold the income of the deceased as Rs. 8,060/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 10. The learned Claims Tribunal considering the age of the deceased as 30 years has rightly added 40% of the assessed income towards the loss of future prospects, made deduction of ½ towards the personal and living expenses and further, applied multiplier of 17 which is in consonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121. 11.The learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 40,000/- towards the loss of love and affection to the claimants/appellants, Rs. 15,000/- each towards the funeral expenses and loss of estate. The award of compensation under the head of loss of consortium was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and thereafter, the types of consortium is explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC and held that the there are three types of consortium i.e. spousal consortium for 7 wife/husband, parental consortium to children and filial consortium to parents. In the case at hand, the Appellants No. 1 & 2 are parents of the deceased and therefore, they are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium (total Rs. 80,000/-). it is ordered accordingly. 12.Now, the claimants are being awarded the loss of filial consortium, therefore, they will not be entitled for compensation under the head of loss of love and affection as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation under the head of medical expenses of Rs. 2,73,300/- considering the medical bills placed on record and exhibited by the claimants and further considering that the deceased during the period of his treatment was shifted from B.S.R. Apollo Hospital, Bhilai to Mekahara Hospital, Raipur on 24.02.2017 and remained there as impatient till 16.03.2017. The Claims Tribunal though recorded a finding that the claimants have not produced any bills of the medical expenses, however, considering the period of treatment have awarded Rs. 50,000/- in lump sum towards the further medical expenses at Raipur. From the facts, date of accident and the date of death, it is appearing that the claimants from the date of accident i.e. 07.02.2017 till his death i.e. 16.03.2017 remained admitted in the hospital i.e. for about 01 month and 09 days and during that period, he was attended by the family members, some special diet was also required and claimants might have also expended money for shifting of the deceased from hospital at Bhilai to the Mekahara Hospital, Raipur and they might have expended money towards the conveyance expenses also. Therefore, in the aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to award Rs. 8 10,000/- towards the attendant, Rs. 10,000/- towards the special diet and Rs. 15,000/- towards the conveyance expenses, as after the death of deceased, he might have also been carried from hospital to the place of his residence. 13. For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants. 14. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.8,060/- and since at the time of death, the deceased was 30 years old, therefore, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the income of deceased is required to be enhanced by 40% towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.11,284/- (8,060 + 3224). Thus annual income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the compensation comes to Rs.1,35,408/- (8,060 x 12). Out of this amount, 1/2 is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and after deducting 1/2 of the annual income, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.67,704/- (1,35,408 – 67,704). By applying multiplier of 17, as applied by the Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.11,50,968/- (67,704 x 17). Besides this, Appellants No. 1 & 2 are entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards filial consortium, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Magma General Insurance (Supra). Further, they are also entitled for Rs. 15,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. They will also be entitled for Rs. 2,73,300/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 10,000/- towards attendant, Rs. 10,000/- towards special diet and Rs. 9 15,000/- towards conveyance expenses and Rs. 50,000/- towards future medical expenses. 15. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.16,19,268/- [11,50,968 (loss of dependency) + 80,000 (loss of filial consortium) + 15,000 (funeral expenses) + 15,000 (loss of estate) + 2,73,300 (medical expenses) + 50,000 (future medical expenses) + 10,000 (attendant) + 10,000 (special diet) + 15,000 (conveyance expenses)]. This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 16. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants No. 1 to 5 as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 18. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- /--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey