1 2025:CGHC:25188 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1092 of 2019 1 - Suresh Kumar S/o Late Shri Jhumuk Ram Vaidya Aged About 64 Years 2 - Dhiraj Kumar Vaidya S/o Shri Suresh Kumar Vaidya Aged About 41 Years 3 - Niraj Kumar Vaidya S/o Shri Suresh Kumar Vaidya Aged About 38 Years All are R/o Jyoti Vidyalaya Ke Pass, G.E Road B. M. Y. Charoda, Tahsil Patan District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants versus 1 - Dayanand Sahu S/o Avadhram Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Urla, Thana Bhilai -Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh (Wahan Kramank C. G. 04 H. 6818 Ka Chalak) 2 - Chhabiram S/o Gariba Ram R/o Mahavir Chowk Urla, B M Y Charoda, Tahsil Patan District Durg Chhattisarh ( Wahan Kramank C.G. 04 H 6818 Ka Malik ) 3 - Prabandhak New India Insurance Company Limited, Charoda Micro Karyalaya, Bharat Petrol Pump Ke Samne G.E. Road Padumnagar, Charoda/ Bhilai Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 18/06/2025 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 First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District – Durg (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 28.01.2019 passed in Claim Case No.99/2016 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.3,49,972/- as compensation in a death case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming total compensation of Rs.54,50,000/- under different heads on account of the death of Smt. Gouri Vaidya, who died in the road accident pleading therein that on 13.03.2016 at about 8.00 PM, Smt. Pushpa Ramteke along with sister-in-law Gouri Vaidya and Jaya Mishrekar was travelling in the car driven by Pravin. Whey they reached near in front of Ford Show Room, near G.E. Road, BMY Charoda, respondent No.1 by driving the vehicle Tata Specio Gold No.6818 in a rash and negligent manner dashed the car from rear side and caused accident, due to which occupants of car sustained severe injuries and they were taken to hospital. During course of treatment Smt. Pushpa Ramteke and Smt. Gouri Vaidya died. It was pleaded that deceased Gouri Vaidya was healthy woman of 56 years and was running small scale industry and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that due to her untimely death, the appellants/claimants suffered irreparable loss. 3 3. The non-applicant No.3 filed its reply to the claim application and resisted the claim of the claimants. The insurance of the offending vehicle was denied at the time accident. It was pleaded that the claim application was filed exaggerating the amount of compensation. The accident occurred due to the negligence of both the drivers. On the date of accident, the non-applicant No.1 was not having valid and effective driving license, and hence there was breach of conditions of insurance policy. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.3,49,972/-. 5. Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation. It is contended that the income of the deceased as assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal is on lower side. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs.70,000/- towards loss of love and affection and funeral expenses and has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium and loss of estate. The learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded proper compensation on other conventional head. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 -Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants and submits that the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 4 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 8. It is not in dispute that the accident is of 13.03.2016. Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month only on notional basis. True it is that claimant could not able to prove the nature of employment as also the income of the deceased by producing clinching evidence. However, in the facts of the case, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken the 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 authority under the Minimum Wages Act for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. As per the notification issued by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, monthly income of the labourer prevailing from 01.10.2015 till 31.03.2016 for unskilled labour has been fixed as Rs.5,860/-, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the monthly income of the deceased can be assessed as Rs.5,860/-. It is ordered accordingly. 9. As on the date of accident, deceased was in between 60 to 65 years of age, therefore, there shall be no addition towards the future prospects. Learned Claims Tribunal has also rightly applied the deduction of 1/3 towards personal living expenses and further applied the multiplier of 7, which is in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. 5 10. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded consolidated sum Rs.70,000/- towards love and affection and funeral expenses. As there is no head for award of compensation towards loss of love and affection, however, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the claimants are to be awarded compensation under the head of loss of consortium. 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 has explained the types of consortium and held that there are three types of loss of consortium i.e. loss of spousal consortium for widow/widower, loss of parental consortium to the children and loss of filial consortium to parents. The appellant No.1 is husband, appellant No.2 and 3 are children of the deceased therefore, all the appellants/claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium. It is ordered accordingly. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has further held that in death case, the claimants are entitled for the award of sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, therefore, the appellants are also entitled for the same. It is ordered accordingly. 11. On the basis of above, the compensation calculated by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Annual income (Rs.5,860 x 12) : 70,320.00 3. 1/3 deduction towards personal expenses (70,320 – 23,440) = : 46,880.00 6 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 7 (46,880x 7) : 3,28,160.00 5. For funeral expenses : 15,000.00 6. For loss of estate : 15,000.00 7. For loss of consortium to appellants Rs.40,000/- each (Rs.40,000 x 3) : 1,20,000.00 Total compensation : 4,78,160.00 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,78,160.00. Any amount already paid to the appellants as compensation pursuant to the impugned award, shall be adjusted. 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. 13. 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