-1- 2025:CGHC:16936 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 986 of 2020 1 - Sangita Bai W/o Late Shiv Kumar Kashyap, Aged About 30 Years 2 - Aditya Kumar S/o Late Shiv Kumar Kashyap, Aged About 12 Years 3 - Anshu Kashyap S/o Late Shiv Kumar Kashyap, Aged About 8 Years 4 - Bhulau Ram S/o Agar Sai, Aged About 65 Years Appellants No. 2 & 3 are minor and presented through their Legal Guardian Mother Sangita Bai W/o Late Shiv Kumar Kashyap, All are by Caste - Kashyap, R/o - Village - Pendri, Police Station And Tahsil - Janjgir, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Jogender Tiwari S/o Jugal Kishor Tiwari, R/o - Netaji Chowk, Balaji Bagwala, Janjgir, Police Station And Tahsil - Janjgir - District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle) 2 - Sudishnath Tiwari S/o Jugal Kishor Tiwari, R/o - Netaji Chowk, Janjgir, Police Station And Tahsil - Janjgir, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle) 3 - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through - Branch Manager, Branch Office, Transport Nagar, Korba, Tahsil And District - Korba Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle) ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Ms. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate For Resp. No.1 & 2 : Mr. Vishwanath Shriwas, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Parasmani Shriwas, Advocate For Resp. No.3 : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate _______________________________________________________ Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.04.25 10:18:57 +0530 -2- S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 11/04/2025 1. Heard on IA No.1 of 2020, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 oppose the application on the ground that no satisfactory explanation is offered to condone inordinate delay of 587 days. 3. On due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and the grounds raised in the application for condonation of delay, the application (IA No.1) is allowed. Delay of 587 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally at admission stage. 5. This is the claimant’s 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 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Janjgir-Champa (CG) vide award dated 01.10.2018 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.38 of 2018. 6. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that claimants/appellants filed an application under Sections 166 of the Act of 1988 pleading therein that on the date of accident i.e. 03/03/2018, Shiv Kumar Kashyap was going from Janjgir to his village Pendri on his scooty after getting his paralyzed father treated. When he reached on the main road near State Bank Janjgir at around 06.00 pm, non-applicant no. 1 Jogendra Tiwari -3- driving truck no. CG 11/ AB-4487 rashly and negligently dashed against the scooty of Shiv Kumar Kashyap, due to which, Shiv Kumar Kashyap suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. It is stated in the claim application that deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as a Mason and from this income he was maintaining the applicants. The age of the deceased was 35 years on the date of accident. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, applicants have suffered mental agony, the applicants have been deprived of the love and affection of the deceased and dependency. They prayed for grant of compensation of Rs. 38,19,000/- from the non-applicants. 7. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 in their written statement have denied the entire facts pleaded in the claim application and have further stated that no accident had occurred with the vehicle -truck number CG 11 / AB 4487 driven by non-applicant No.1, there was a valid and effective licence with non-applicant No.1 to drive the vehicle. On the date of accident, vehicle of non-applicant No.2 was insured with the Non-applicant No.3/insurance company. Hence, the liability to pay amount of compensation, if any, is upon the insurance company. 8. Non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company has also denied all the facts mentioned in the claim application. It was pleaded that non- applicant No. 1 did not cause any accident by driving the truck rashly and negligently, the deceased was driving his scooty rashly and negligently. Apart from the driver, two more persons were also sitting in the scooty. The deceased was not able to control his -4- scooty while driving, due to which, accident occurred. Non- applicant No. 1 did not have a valid and effective license to drive the said vehicle. Pleading of contributory negligence is also taken. 9. 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 applicant/claimant suffered grievous injuries and died. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy as also contributory negligence were not found proved, learned Claims Tribunal held non-applicants liable to pay the amount of compensation jointly and severally. Assessing income of the deceased as Rs.7,500/- per month, awarded total compensation of Rs.11,50,000/ -. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants raises a short point for enhancement of the amount of compensation, that while considering the income of the deceased who was stated to be working as Mason, learned Claims Tribunal has only considered the decision of this Court in MAC No.1599 of 2017 and MAC No.1469 of 2017 decided on 24.01.2018 wherein the income of the deceased- Mason was held as Rs.250/- per day and Rs.7500/- per annum and only on this basis, income of the deceased- Mason was assessed as Rs.7500/- per month. Learned Claims Tribunal erred in not considering the date of accident and minimum wages prevailing on the date of accident as also not considered the fact that deceased was a ‘skilled labourer’ and as per Minimum Wages -5- Act, the income of the ‘skilled labourer’ fixed by the Commissioner and Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is Rs.9230/- per month. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant/claimants that the learned Claims Tribunal while computing the amount of compensation erred in not adding compensation towards future prospects in the income of the deceased as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680. She further submits that no amount has been awarded to appellant/claimants No. 2 & 3 being children of the deceased towards ‘loss of parental consortium’ and appellant/claimants No.4 being father of the deceased towards ‘loss of filial consortium’. She prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation accordingly. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for respective respondents oppose the submission of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and submits that the amount of compensation awarded is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and it does not call for any interference. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. 13. Undisputedly, non-applicant No.1 is the driver of the truck no. CG 11/AB-4487 which caused the accident, the owner of the truck is non-applicant No. 2 and the insurer of said vehicle is non-applicant No. 3. 14. Pleading made by claimants/appellant in their claim application that -6- deceased Shiv Kumar Kashyap was working as Mason and earning Rs.15,000/- per month was denied by the respondent-Insurance Company in their written statement. A.W. 1 Sangeeta Bai, wife of the deceased, in her evidence has stated that his husband was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as Mason. However, no documentary evidence was brought on record to prove the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month, nor any independent witness is examined. No admissible evidence of income is produced by claimants. 15. For the purpose of assessing income of deceased on notional basis in absence of any specific evidence, this Court finds it appropriate to take help of the Notification issued by the Commissioner and Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. In the Notification published for the period from 01.10.2017 to 31.03.2018 for ‘Class-C Cities’ for ‘skilled labourer’, monthly income has been prescribed as Rs.9230/- per month. Therefore, in the aforementioned fact of the case, income of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal is erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of law considering the minimum wage as fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and, therefore, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased as Rs.9230/- per month instead of Rs.7500/- per month as held by learned Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. Further, as on the date of accident i.e. 03.03.2018 deceased Shiv Kumar Kashyap was aged about 35 years, therefore, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi -7- (supra), there shall be an addition of 40% in the assessed income of the deceased towards loss of future prospects. It is ordered accordingly. 16. From perusal of the impugned award it is also not reflecting that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded amount of consortium to appellants/claimants No. 2 & 3 being children of the deceased and to appellant/claimant No.4 being father of the deceased, therefore, I find it appropriate to award parental consortium of Rs.40,000/- to appellant/claimant No.2 & 3 each being children of the deceased and filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- to appellant/claimant No.4 being father of the deceased as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130. 17. 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 9230 x 12 = 1,10,760 (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 40% 1,10,760 x 40% =44,304 (C) Deduction of ¼ towards personal and living expenses 1,55,064 x 1/4 =38,766 (D) Multiplier of 16 1,16,298 x 16 = 18,60,768 Rs. 18,60,768 2. Funeral Expenses : (+) Rs. 15,000 3. Loss of Estate : (+) Rs. 15,000 4. Loss of spousal consortium to : (+) Rs. 40,000 -8- claimant No.1/wife of the deceased 5. Loss of Parental Consortium of Rs.40,000/- each to claimants No. 2 & 3 being children of the deceased : (+) Rs. 80,000 6. Loss of Filial Consortium of Rs.40,000/- to claimant No.4 being father of the deceased : (+) Rs. 40,000 Total compensation : Rs. 20,50,768/- 18. Now the appellants/claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs.20,50,768/- instead of Rs.11,50,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 19. Aforementioned total amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8 % 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. 20. Claimants will not be entitled for interest of the delayed period in filing of appeal i.e. 587 days. 21. 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