1 2025:CGHC:25029 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 998 of 2020 1. Smt. Anju Gond W/o Late Ganesh Ram Gond Aged About 33 Years Occupation House Wife R/o Village Karesar P.S. And Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Claiment) ... Appellant versus 1. Rajnath Nagesiya S/o Jitan Ram Nagesiya Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Kantiprakashpur Luchaki (House No. 80 Basorpara), P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh.(Driver And Owner), District : Surguja ( 2. The Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Ambika Petrol Pump Campus, Near Ambedkar Chowk Banaras Road Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. Pin No. 492001, 3. Ramsai S/o Late Heduva Aged About 65 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Karesar P.S. And Tahsil Lundra District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 4. Smt. Bhondi Devi W/o Ramsai Aged About 60 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Karesar P.S. And Tahsil Lundra District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Insurer). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Aakancha Vishwakarma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 & 4: Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 17/06/2025 1. Appellant-claimant has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 7.2.2020 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur District Surguja (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.123/2019 by which learned Claims Tribunal allowed application of appellant in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.12,35,794/- to claimant/appellant herein, in a death case. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.25,10,064/- under various heads, for untimely death of deceased Ganesh Ram in a motor vehicular accident. According to claimant, who is widow of deceased, on 1.1.2019 at about 7:00 p.m. Ganesh Ram along with his friend was going towards village Raghunathpur from village Karesar, at that time near a rice mill situated in village Batwari, the motorcycle bearing CG15-DK-2655, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed their motorcycle and caused accident. In the said accident, Ganesh Ram sustained grievous injuries. Ganesh Ram died on 25.1.2019 while undergoing treatment. 3. Driver-cum-owner of offending motorcycle filed reply denying 3 allegation of negligent driving and pleading that deceased himself was responsible for the accident. Insurance Company also filed a separate reply and took a stand that rider of offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 4. The Claims Tribunal upon analyzing the pleadings and evidence brought on record by the parties, came to the conclusion that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by non-applicant No.1 which resulted in death of deceased during course of treatment; disbelieved the version of claimants that deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by running a grocery shop and doing agriculture work, recording that claimant failed to prove the employment and income of deceased by any documentary evidence in that regard. It was also held that there was no violation of any of the conditions of insurance policy. Consequently, the Claims Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded compensation of Rs.12,35,794/- and fastened liability upon the Insurance Company to satisfy the award. 5. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant submits that income of the deceased has not been properly assessed by the Claims Tribunal and compensation under the head of future prospects has also not been granted to the appellant. 4 He next contended that learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding amount towards loss of consortium to all the dependent family members of deceased. Therefore amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal be suitably enhanced. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 supporting the award passed by the Claims Tribunal has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused record of claim case including impugned award. 8. So far as income of the deceased is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has assessed income of deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month only, which is not just and proper. The accident occurred on 1.1.2019 and deceased was resident of District Surguja, which comes within the category of ‘C’ Grade, therefore, considering the minimum wage rate prescribed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for an unskilled labour Zone ‘C’ category, for the relevant period, monthly income of deceased is fixed as Rs.7800/-. 9. It is appearing from the award that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects. The Claims Tribunal has taken age of deceased as 32 years on the basis of postmortem report, therefore, as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance 5 Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the claimant is entitled for future prospects @ 40%. It is ordered accordingly. 10. Deduction one-third made towards personal expenses of the deceased and multiplier of 16 applied by the Claims Tribunal is as per law settled in this regard and need no interference. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, the parents are also entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head ‘filial Consortium’. In case at hand, the Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs.40,000/- to the widow of deceased towards loss of spousal consortium and not awarded any amount towards loss of filial consortium to non-applicant No.3 and 4, who are parents of deceased. Accordingly, it is ordered that the non-applicant No.3 and 4 would be entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium. 11. In the accident, deceased sustained grievous injury on head with contusion on right temporal region as also fracture of right temporal bone. After the accident, the deceased took treatment in different hospitals including Super Specialty Hospital, Raipur. He died on 25.1.2019. Thus, the deceased must have spent considerable amount in transportation and attendant for going Raipur from Ambikapur for treatment. 6 Considering this fact, I find it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards transportation and attendant. It is ordered accordingly. 12. As against the total claim of Rs.6,00,00/-, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,59,394/- towards medical expenses. Learned counsel for appellant failed to point as to which medical bill was not considered and paid by the Claims Tribunal. In absence of any specific submission with respect to non-award of any particular bill, submission of learned counsel for appellant that the entire medical claim has not been considered and awarded by the Claims Tribunal is not sustainable and it is hereby repelled. 13. For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants. 14.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.7800/- per month and after adding 40% towards future prospects, monthly income of deceased would come to Rs.10,920/- and annual income would be Rs.1,31,400/-. Out of this amount, one-third is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased, as held above, and after deducting one-third, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.87,360/-. Applying multiplier of 16, as applied by Claims Tribunal, the loss of dependency would be Rs.13,97,760/- (87360x16). Besides this, appellant-wife is entitled for a sum 7 of Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium; respondents No.3 and 4 being parents of deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each for loss of filial consortium, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram (supra). In addition to aforesaid amount, appellants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate. Appellant is also entitled for Rs.3,59,394/- as awarded by Claims Tribunal towards medical expenses and Rs.15,000/- for transportation and attendant, as awarded by this Court. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.19,22,154/- This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of application till actual payment is made. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount disbursed to appellant pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted from the amount of compensation as awarded above. 15.In the result, both the appeals are allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/- SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI