Page No.1 2025:CGHC:35888 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1002 of 2019 1. Lalit Nishad S/o Narayan Nishad Aged About 28 Years 2. Minor Indra Kumar S/o Lalit Nishad Aged About 6 Years 3. Minor Narshing S/o Lalit Nishad Aged About 3 Years Appellant No.2 and 3 are through Legal Natural Guardian Father Namely Lalit Nishad S/o Narayan Nishad, All are resident of Village Bhasera, Police Station Fingeshwar, Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants-claimants versus 1. Digeshwar Patel S/o Panchram Patel Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Shri Ram Chowk, Patel Para, Kopra, Police Station Paduka, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 2. Laxmi Sahu W/o Loknath Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Fingeshwar Road, Behind, Sai Lodge, Ward No. 11, Rajim Police Station Rajim District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh., 3. Branch Manager, Shri Ram General Insurer Company Ltd. Maruti Heights 3rd Floor, G.E. Road, Amanaka Raipur, Distt Raipur (CG) …..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2 : None For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 24/7/2025 1. This appeal is filed by claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Additional Motor Accident SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Page No.2 Claims Tribunal, Gariyabandh vide award dated 21.2.2019 in Claim Case No.41/2017 and since the death of deceased in a road traffic accident dated 22.6.2017, involvement of offending vehicle, owned by non-applicant No.1, driven by non-applicant No.2 and insured by non-applicant No.3, in said accident is not in dispute, therefore, this Court is not adverting to the facts of the case and only considering submissions of learned counsel for respective parties on the question of enhancement of quantum of compensation. 2. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that in absence of documentary proof of the income, the Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of deceased as per minimum wage rate notified under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for an unskilled worker. He next contended that the compensation awarded towards loss of consortium is not in accordance with the law settled in this regard. Hence he prays that the amount of compensation awarded be enhanced suitably. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3- Insurance Company would submit that amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is adequate and does not call for any interference. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. As regards the income of deceased, perusal of record reveals that claimants failed to prove the income of deceased by leading admissible piece of evidence, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal has not Page No.3 committed any mistake in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. However, in cases where documentary evidence is not produced to prove income of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal should determine income on the basis of wage rate prevailing in area, price index, cost of living or can take help of the wage rate notified under the Minimum Wages Act. In case at hand, the Claims Tribunal, on guess work assessed income of deceased to be Rs.4,500/- per month but did not resort to circulars/notifications issued by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 notifying wage rate for skilled, unskilled and high skilled workers and therefore, fixation of income of deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month by learned Claims Tribunal is not proper. 6. Date of accident is 22.6.2017. Deceased was resident of District Gariyaband which is a ‘C’ Zone area. As per Schedule ‘B’ issued by the Labour Commissioner-cum-Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Raipur notifying minimum wage for the unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled and high skilled workers would show that minimum wage notified for an unskilled worker of Zone ‘C’ are is Rs.7,930/- per month. Thus, considering minimum wage rate prevailing for unskilled worker on the date of accident in District Gariyabandh, which is a Zone ‘C’ area, I am of the view that income of deceased can be fixed at Rs.7,930/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 7. Perusal of impugned award reveals that the Claims Tribunal Page No.4 has awarded only Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, claimants being widow/husband is entitled to spousal consortium, children to parental consortium and parents to filial consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. In case at hand, the appellants, who are husband and children of deceased, are thus entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of spousal consortium and parental consortium respectively. It is ordered accordingly. 8. Addition of 40% towards future prospects, deduction of one- third towards personal expenses of deceased and multiplier of 17 applied by Claims Tribunal is correct and the same does not call for any interference. Compensation awarded under the head ‘funeral expenses’ and ‘loss of estate’ is also found to be correct. 9. For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants. 10.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.7,930/- per month and after adding 40% towards future prospects, total income comes to Rs.11,102/-. Thus, annual income of deceased for the purpose of calculating compensation comes to Rs.1,33,224/-. Out of this amount, one-third is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased Page No.5 and after deducting one-fourth, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.88,816/-. By applying multiplier of 17, as applied by Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency, total loss of dependency would come to Rs.15,09,872/-. Besides this, appellant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium; appellant No.2 t& 3 are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each for loss of parental consortium. They are also entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses. However, as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017)16 SCC 680, the amount of compensation under the aforesaid heads i.e. loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate, is to be increased @ 10% after every three years, which will make the compensation payable to claimants under the head of loss of consortium as Rs.44,000/- (10% of 40000 + 40000); loss of estate as Rs.16,500/- (10% of 15000 + 15000) and funeral expenses as Rs.16,500/- (10% of 15000 + 15000). Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.16,74,872/- The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 11.Any amount already paid to claimants/appellants as compensation shall be adjusted from total amount of compensation as calculated above. Page No.6 12.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-