-1- 2025:CGHC:15047 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 992 of 2020 1 - Anu Bai Sav W/o Late Rajkumar Sav Aged About 35 Years 2 - Hema Sav S/o Late Rajkumar Sav Aged About 17 Years 3 - Hemprasad Sav S/o Late Rajkumar Sav Aged About 15 Years 4 - Dinesh Sav S/o Late Rajkumar Sav Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Anu Bai Sav W/o Late Rajkumar Sav Age 35 Years. All R/o Ward No. 20, Bus Stand, Tehsil Kodatarai, PS Raigarh Distt Raigarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Vikrant Paswan S/o Ramji Paswan Aged About 25 Years R/o Ujjaini, PS Pandwa Distt Aurangabad (Bihar) Driver (Vehicle Dumper Hiwa No. CG 04 Q 1729) 2 - M/s Kannodiya Cement Ltd D-19, Gopalpur, UP SDIC Industrial Area Sikandarabad, Distt Bulandsheher (UP) R/o M/s Kannodiya Cement Ltd Block No. 5-7 A Singapur Citi Kota, Infront Of Mohba Bazzar Raipur, Tehsil And Diss. Raipur Chhattisgarh Owner 3 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd Through Its Branch Manager Office Address Rama Traders Center 2nd Floor, Infront Of Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur PS Civil Line Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Insurer (Vehicle Dumper Hiwa No. CG 04 Q 1729) ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Jasraj Singh Bhatia, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D.L. Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate _______________________________________________________ Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.04.03 17:29:28 +0530 -2- S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 28/03/2025 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 Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG) vide award dated 29th February 2020 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.527 of 2019. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 against the respondent/non-applicants, pleading therein that on 17.04.2019 at about 8:00 pm, when Rajkumar Sao after closing his hotel was walking on the main road to get household goods, at that time, in front of Krishna Traders on Kodatarai Main Road, non- applicant No.1 driving his vehicle i.e. Hyva no. CG 04 MQ/1729 rashly and negligently hit Rajkumar Sao, as a result of which Rajkumar Sao died on the spot. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased Rajkumar Sao was running a hotel and earning monthly income of Rs. 15,000/- and was taking care of the applicants. Due to untimely death of the deceased, the applicants have been deprived of the income of the deceased and have become helpless. They prayed for award of compensation of Rs. 46,80,000/- along with interest from the non-applicants . 4. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 have submitted their written statement -3- denying all the allegations made in the claim application and stated that as per the FIR, accident is caused by an unknown dumper driver, which shows that the alleged accident happened with some other vehicle, while the vehicles of non-applicant No. 1 and 2 has been falsely involved. The said vehicle number CG 04 AQ 1729 of non- applicant No. 2 is insured with non-applicant No. 3 for the period from 28.02.2019 to 27.02.2020. Hence, the claim application with respect to non-applicants No.1 & 2 may be dismissed. 5. Non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company in its written statement has also denied all the averments made in the claim application and stated that no accident occurred with the vehicle number CG 04 MQ 1729. At the time of accident, non-applicant No.1 did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive the said vehicle, therefore, due to deliberate violation of the conditions of insurance policy, by the owner of vehicle, non-applicant No.3 is not responsible for compensation. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that the incident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of non-applicant No.1 in which Rajkumar Sao suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, accordingly calculated and awarded a total sum of Rs.13,93,000/- as compensation, holding liability to pay the amount of compensation upon non-applicants/ respondents jointly and severally. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. He contended that the Claims -4- Tribunal erred in disbelieving the nature of occupation and the income of the deceased on the date of accident i.e. running a hotel and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, overlooking the pleadings made in the application and the evidence of Annu (A.W.1) wife of the deceased. He next contended that learned Tribunal has not awarded amount towards loss of consortium to all the claimants 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. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposing submissions of learned counsel for the appellants argues that learned Claims Tribunal considering entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case has awarded just and proper amount of compensation. Tribunal, in absence of proof of income by admissible piece of evidence brought on record by the appellant/claimant, assessed income of deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month on notional basis, which cannot be said to be erroneous. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. 10. A short question involved in this case is, whether assessment of monthly income of the deceased and not awarding consortium to all the claimants/dependents is erroneous ? 11. Perusal of the records would show that though in the claim application it is stated that deceased was running a hotel and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, however, except the oral evidence of Annu (A.W.1), no other evidence is brought by the appellants/claimants to prove said pleadings, hence, the pleadings made in the application and statement -5- made by Annu (A.W.1), wife of the deceased, that the deceased on the date of accident was running a hotel cannot be said to have been proved in absence of admissible and clinching piece of evidence. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in disbelieving the nature of occupation and income as pleaded by the appellants/claimants before the Claims Tribunal. Learned Claims Tribunal while disbelieving the income as pleaded and stated has considered the Notification dated 19.09.2019 with regard to engagement of a person in agriculture for the period from 01.04.2019 to 30.04.2019 which is mentioned in Part-II of the notification issued by the Competent Authority i.e. Labour Commissioner Raipur, Chhattisgarh treating the deceased to be ‘un- skilled labourer’ and assessed the income as Rs.7,000/- per month (Rs.84,000/- per year). 12. True it is that appellant/claimants failed to prove the nature of occupation and the income as pleaded in the claim application, however, it cannot be overlooked that the deceased was resident of the District Raigarh. Raigarh is an industrial city. Hence, if income is to be assessed more particularly for award of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, which is a beneficial piece of legislation, in the opinion of this Court, Tribunal ought to have taken minimum wage for ‘unskilled labourer’ as provided under the Notification issued by the Commissioner-cum-Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act for the ‘unskilled labourer’ under Part-I of the Schedule which is Rs.8,060/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. Award of compensation under the loss of consortium is also well settled by the Hon’ble -6- Supreme Court in the case of Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru (supra) wherein it was held that widow, children and parents of the deceased are all entitled for loss of consortium. 13. As in the case at hand, appellant/claimant No.1 is the widow of deceased and appellant/claimants No. 2 to 4 are three children and the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded loss of consortium to appellant No.1 widow only, in the opinion of this Court, appellants/claimants No. 2 to 4 are also entitled to amount of compensation for loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- each . It is ordered accordingly. 14. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to re- compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. Loss of Income/dependency (96,720 x 40 % =38,688/- 96,720 + 38,688=1,35,408/- 1,35,408 x ¼ = 33,852 1,35,408-33,852= 1,01,556 1,01,556 x 15=15,23,340) : Rs. 15,23,340 2. Funeral expenses : Rs. 15,000 3. Loss of Estate : Rs. 15,000 4. Loss of spousal consortium to appellant/claimant No.1/wife : Rs. 40,000 5. Loss of parental consortium to appellants/claimants No. 2 to 4 @ 40,000/- each : Rs. 1,20,000 Total compensation : Rs. 17,13,340/- 15. Now the appellants/claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs.17,13,340/- instead of Rs.13,93,000/- as awarded by the Claims -7- Tribunal. 16. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that respondent No.3/Insurance Company has already satisfied the amount of compensation as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal along with interest till the date of payment of amount of compensation. 17. In the aforementioned facts of the case, it is ordered that enhanced amount of compensation, as ordered by this Court, 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. 18. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen