-1- 2025:CGHC:25014 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 996 of 2020 1 - Girdhari Chakravarti S/o Sevo Kushal Chakra Aged About 60 Years 2 - Shanti Bai Chakravarti W/o Girdhari Aged About 55 Years 3 - Harkunwar Chakravarti S/o Girdharilal Aged About 17 Years Minor Through His Natural Guardian Girdhari Chakravarti S/o Sevo Kushal Chakra Age 60 Years All are R/o Village And Post Jhalmala Tehsil Pussoure, P. S. Jutemill District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Shaukeen Jaat S/o Mangalram Jaat Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kamadiya Ka Bas, Tikawada, POS Kishangarh, District Ajmer Rajasthan ...........Driver (Vehicle Trailer No. RJ 42 GA 0834) 2 - Hari Ram S/o Gheesa Jaat Aged About 28 Years R/o Sakin Devpuri, P. S. Arai District Ajmer Rajasthan ...........Owner (Vehicle Trailer No. RJ 42 GA 0834) 3 - United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Branch Manager Office Address 2nd Floor, Guru Kripa Tower, Adjacent To ICICI Bank Vyapar Vihar Main Road, Bilaspur P. S. Civil Line Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ............Insurer ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Arvind Panda, Advocate on behalf of D.L. Dewangan Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate _______________________________________________________ Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.06.24 10:27:53 +0530 -2- S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 17/06/2025 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 Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG) vide award dated 5th March 2020 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.479 of 2019. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the claimants/appellants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before learned Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, seeking compensation stating therein that on 12.04.2019 when Damrudhar Chakravarti was traveling on his friend Jai Patel's motorcycle, non-applicant No.1 driving Trailer No. RJ 42 GA-0834 rashly and negligently dashed against the motorcycle, due to which, Damrudhar Chakravarti sustained grievous injuries, while being taken to the hospital he died. The appellants/claimants prayed for total compensation Rs. 50,10,000/- (fifty lakh, ten thousand rupees) on the ground that that the deceased was working as a Maintenance Helper at OP Jindal Super Thermal Power Plant, Tamnar, District Raigarh at the time of the accident and earning monthly income of Rs. 15,000/-. 4. Non-applicant No.3 has denied the fact of accident with the vehicle in question by filing its written statement and has also pleaded the fact -3- that the accident happened due to head on collision of two vehicles on the road, as such, principle of contributory negligence/joint negligence is attracted in the case. At the time of the accident, deceased Damrudhar Chakravarti did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle motorcycle. The trailer owner violated the terms of the insurance policy because at the time of the accident, the said trailer was being driven by non-applicant No. 1 without a valid permit, valid fitness and without a valid driving license. In such a situation, if any liability arises in relation to compensation, then it falls only on non-applicant No. 2, the vehicle owner, and non-applicant No.3/ insurance company does not have any liability to pay any amount of compensation. 5. 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 Damrudhar Chakravarti suffered grievous injuries and died. Plea of contributory negligence has not been found to be proved. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found to be proved , learned Claims Tribunal held non-applicants liable to pay the amount of compensation. Assessing income of the deceased as Rs.7,190/- per month, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.11,57,128/ -. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimant submits that learned Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation of Rs.11,57,128/- overlooking the fact that deceased at the time of -4- accident was aged about 19 years and working as Maintenance Helper in O.P. Jindal Super Thermal Power Plant Tamnar, the evidence of AW3- Angad Prasad Dwivedi, Supervisor working with Bimcon Associates and document Ex.P-10 i.e. Contract Workers Gate Pass issued by Jindal Super Thermal Power Plant and certificate issued by Bimcon Associates mentioning income of daily wage of deceased as Rs.343/- per day. Claims Tribunal has erroneously assessed the income of deceased treating him to be an agricultural labourer as Rs.7190/- per month. He next contended that learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’ as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance company vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and would submit that learned Claims Tribunal recording a finding that claimants failed to prove nature of employment and the monthly income of the deceased as pleaded in claim application, justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis treating him to be an agriculture labourer, which does not call for any reference. He next contended that amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is just and fair in the facts of the case. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. -5- 9. Appellants/claimants have raised twofold submission that learned Claims Tribunal has assessed income of deceased on lower side and further, not awarded sufficient amount under head- ‘loss of consortium’. 10. In the claim application, claimants have pleaded that deceased was engaged as Maintenance Labour with O.P. Jindal Super Thermal Power Plant and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. To prove said pleading made in the application, claimants have placed the Contract Workers Gate Pass issued by Jindal Super Thermal Power Plant, mentioning name of contractor as Bimcon Associates and name of the labourer as Damrudhar Chakravarti. Further, a letter dated 03.12.2019 issued under Letter Head of Bimcon Associates is filed as Ex.P-11 contents of which specifies that deceased was working since March /April 2019 and was being paid Rs.343/- per day. Claimants further examined Angad Prasad Dwivedi as AW3 . In his evidence he stated that he is working as Supervisor with Bimcon Associates, deceased was working as Maintenance Helper and being paid Rs.343/- per day and that the deceased was also being paid for doing overtime work for 20-30 hrs. in a month. It is admission of this witness in para-3 that deceased was being paid wages for 26 days in a month. Though this witness in his examination-in-chief stated that deceased was doing overtime work for 20-30 hrs. in a month, however, there is no discussion or details of overtime work done by the deceased. 11. To assess income of deceased for computing the amount of compensation in a claim application filed under Act of 1988, Courts are required to consider entire evidence, pleadings and documents brought -6- on record by the respective parties. Claimants have brought on record Gate-Pass issued by Jindal Super Thermal Power Plant Tamnar mentioning the name of contractor as Bimcon Associates, the name of worker as Damrudhar (deceased) as Ex.P-10. Furtherm they have produced certificate issued on the letter head of Bimcon Associates with whom deceased was working as contract labourer, mentioning the wages to be paid to deceased as Rs.343/- per day and further have examined AW3 as witness to prove the nature and occupation and wages paid. Considering the documentary and oral evidence brought on record, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal erred in not considering the evidence brought by claimants to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased. Therefore, finding recorded by learned Tribunal and treating the deceased to be agricultural labourer and holding the income as Rs.7190/- per month, in the opinion of this Court, in the facts of the case, is erroneous which is not sustainable and therefore, it is set aside. In view of documentary and oral evidence available on record that the deceased was being paid Rs.343/- per day as wages and further, that wages is being paid for 26 days, the total monthly wages of deceased comes to Rs.8918/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 12. The learned Claims Tribunal has rightly applied addition of 40% of the assessed income of deceased considering the age of deceased as 19 years, applied deduction of ½ towards personal and living expenses treating the deceased to be unmarried and further, correctly applied multiplier of 18 in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. -7- Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121. 13. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellants with respect to not awarding amount of compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’ of Rs.40,000/- is concerned, award of consortium (filial consortium) is considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nanu Ram (supra) wherein it is held that parents are entitled to get compensation under the head ‘loss of filial consortium’ of Rs.40,000/-, and therefore, appellants/claimants No. 1 & 2 are entitled for the amount of compensation of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium. The claimants will further be entitled for Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. 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 8918 x 12 = 107016 (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 40% (107016 x 40% =42806) 107016 + 42806 = 1,49,822 (C) Deduction of 1/2 towards personal and living expenses (1,49,822 x 1/2 =74911) 1,49,822 - 74911 = 74,911 (D) Multiplier of 18 74911 x 18 = 13,48,398 : Rs. 13,48,398 2. Funeral Expenses : (+) Rs. 15,000 3. Loss of Estate : (+) Rs. 15,000 4. Loss of filial consortium to claimants/appellants No. 1 & 2 @ 40,000/- each : (+) Rs. 80,000 Total compensation Rs. 14,58,398 -8- 15. Now the appellant/claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs. 14,58,398/- instead of Rs.11,57,128/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 16. Aforementioned total amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% 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/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen