1 2025:CGHC:18085 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 981 of 2020 1 - Smt. Suchita Kindo Wd/o Late Jholsan Kindo Aged About 43 Years 2 - Goudsan Kindo S/o Late Jholsan Kindo Aged About 23 Years 3 - Arman Kindo S/o Late Jholsan Kindo Aged About 22 Years 4 - Upasana Kindo D/o Late Jholsan Kindo Aged About 21 Years 5 - Joytika Kindo D/o Late Jholsan Kindo Aged About 19 Years 6 - Lavlina Kindo W/o Late Shanti Prakash Kindo Aged About 64 Years All are R/o Village - Ratiya, Tahsil - Lodham, District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants versus 1 - Bhupinder Singh S/o Awatar Singh Aged About 42 Years C/o Sanjay Kumar Shrivastava, House No. E-131, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Permanent Address - Double Happiness A Flat No. 1a, Lower Pp, Compound Ranchi Jharkhand, District : Ranchi, Jharkhand 2 - Saabir Khan @ Shahid Samil Akthar Aged About 26 Years Occupation - Driver, R/o Village - Sarnatoli, P.S. - Senha, District - Lohardaga Jharkhand. 3 - Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Limited, Local Divisional Office - Priyadarshni Nagar, Bilaspur District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Policy Issuing Office - Sachindra Sadan, S.N. Ganguli Road, Main Road, Ranchi District - Ranchi Jharkhand. --- Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.04.28 16:44:27 +0530 2 22/04/2025 1. Claimants/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 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Jashpur, District – Jashpur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 02.03.2020 passed in MACT No.73/2018 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.12,40,000/- as compensation in a death case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 20.03.2017 Jolsan @ Jonson Kindo was going to Lodam along with Dilbar Lakda in the motor cycle as pillion rider. When they reached, near Daundhatoli turn at NH No 43, a truck bearing registration No.C.G.-10- R-7753, coming towards Jashpur, driven by respondent No.2 in rash and negligent manner, hit the motor cycle from back side. The said truck passed over Dilbar Lakda and Jolsan @ Jonson Kindo, due to which head of Jolson Kindo got crushed and he died on the spot. The left leg of Dilbar Lakda crushed and he also suffered fracture on his right leg and waist. 3. Appellants, legal heirs of late Jolsan Kindo filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.52,25,000/- pleading therein that at the time of accident, the deceased was having poultry farm and was doing the business of sale and purchase of chicken. At the time of accident, the deceased was 43 years of age. Claimants had also sought compensation under all other heads as are available to them like loss of future income, for love and affection and loss of consortium etc. 3 4. Non-applicant Nos.1 & 2 submitted reply to claim application and resisted the claim. The happening of incident from the offending vehicle was denied. It was also pleaded that on the date of incident respondent No.2 was having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. The vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.3 and there was no breach of policy condition. It was pleaded that in case, appellants are entitled for compensation, then respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation. 5. Non-applicant No.3-Insurer of offending vehicle, submitted reply to claim application denying the pleadings made therein. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, the motorcyclist was driving the motor cycle in the middle of the road and during this time the motor cycle came under the truck, he did not have valid driving licence and there was no insurance policy. The incident occurred due to negligence of motorcyclist. Hence, insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 6. Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, learned Claims Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.2. Breach of Policy condition was not found to be proved. Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.12,40,000/-, fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation. 7. Learned counsel for appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.8,000/- per month overlooking the pleadings made in the 4 application as also the documentary evidence produced with respect to purchase of chicken from Rai Poultry Farm from the year 2013 to 2016. Therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.25,000/- per month. He next contended that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding suitable amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium to all the appellants and have awarded only Rs.40,000/- to the appellant No.1 towards loss of spousal consortium. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of pleadings and the evidence placed on record has awarded just and proper compensation, which does not call for any interference. With respect to the income of the deceased, he submits that no admissible piece of evidence is brought on record, hence, learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on notional basis, which does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 10. With respect to the income of the deceased as assessed by learned Claims Tribunal, perusal of the record would show that appellant No.1, widow of the deceased is only examined as AW-1 in support of proof of income of the deceased. Appellants have submitted receipts of purchase of chicken from Rai Poultry Farm of the year 2013 till 2016, however, proprietor/owner of the Rai Poultry Farm has not been examined as witness. In the aforementioned facts of the case, in absence of examination of the owner of the Rai Poultry Farm or author 5 of the document from whom the deceased was purchasing chicken and further the son of deceased has also not entered into witness box, I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the claimants failed to prove the income and earning of the deceased. However, the learned Claims Tribunal based on the statement of AW-1 that she has not produced any document with respect to sale of chicken or register maintain by the deceased has rightly assessed the notional income of the deceased to be of Rs.8,000/- per month. 11. So far as the next ground raised by learned counsel for appellants with respect to non-award of amount of consortium to all the claimants is concerned, the issue with respect to the award of amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium is now well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. In the aforementioned decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the type of consortium to be awarded to the spouse, children and the parents of the deceased. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the living spouse is entitled for loss of spousal consortium, children are entitled for loss of parental consortium and parents are entitled for loss of filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. The appellants/claimants are the widow, children and mother of the deceased, hence, all the appellants/claimants are entitled for loss of consortium. Appellant No.1 is entitled for loss of spousal consortium, appellant No.2 to 5 being children are entitled for 6 loss of parental consortium and appellant No.6 is entitled for filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. 12. Addition of 25% towards future prospects, deduction of ¼ and application of multiplier of 13 has been properly applied by by the learned Claims Tribunal, which does not call for any interference. Learned Claims Tribunal has also awarded Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, which also does not call for any interference. Learned learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium to appellant No.1, which is in accordance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 13. For the forgoing discussions the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellants required recomputation, which is as under :- S.N. Head Amount. 1. Loss of income/dependency : Rs.11,70,000.00 2. For loss of estate : Rs. 15,000.00 3. For funeral expenses : Rs. 15,000.00 3. For loss of consortium to appellants No.1 to 6 (Rs.40,000/- each) : Rs. 2,40,000.00 Total Compensation : Rs.14,40,000.00 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.14,40,000.00. Any amount paid to the appellant as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted from the compensation as computed above. Enhanced 7 amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram