1 2025:CGHC:16136 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1035 of 2020 1. Smt. Dayavati Sahu W/o Pushpendra Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o Bazar Chowk Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Thana Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2. Pushpendra Sahu S/o Late Mohan Lal Sahu Aged About 48 Years both are R/o Bazar Chowk Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Thana Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1. Krishna Kumar S/o Indra Dev Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Inda Saradapalli, Bank Para, Thana Inda District Nandipur Khadakpur (West Bengal) Hall Mukam Aamanaka Tatibandh Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur ...................(Driver Cum Owner of the offending vehicle Tanker No. NL02/N/1087), 2. The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, 2nd Floor Rama Trade Center, In Front Of Rajeev Plaza, Near Old Bus Stand Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ................... (Insurer of offending vehicle tanker No. NL02/N/1087). ... Respondents For Appellants : Ms. Shalini Jangde, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : None For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 07/04/2025 1. As per office note, notice issued to respondent No.1 received back un-served with note “incomplete address”. 2 2. There is no dispute regarding the accident, cause of accident as also liability to indemnify the insured owner of offending vehicle by respondent No.2 Insurance Company. The sole question involves in this appeal for consideration is whether or not the Claims Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation to claimants, therefore, service of notice to respondent No.1, who is registered owner-cum-driver of offending vehicle, is dispensed with. 3. With the consent of the parties, this appeal is being heard finally at the admission stage itself. 4. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accidental Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 19.3.2020 passed in Claim Case No.422/2019. 5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 16.10.2018 Shubham Kumar Sahu (since deceased) was going to Bhilai from Bilaspur on his motorcycle bearing registration number CG04- HK-6261, when he reached village Tarpongi situated on National Highway No.30, one tanker bearing registration NL02-N-1087 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), coming from opposite direction and being driven by non-applicant No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, badly dashed his motorcycle as a result he fell down and suffered grievous injuries on his head 3 and other parts of body. He was taken to Medical College Hospital, Raipur for treatment, from there he was shifted to Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai where he breathed his last on 18.10.2018 during treatment. Report of accident was lodged in Police Station Dharsiva based on which offence under Section 304A of IPC was registered against non-applicant No.1. 6. Claimants/ appellants herein, who parents of deceased, filed application claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.41,65,000/- under various heads on the ground that on the date of accident, deceased was 25 years of age, he was 3rd year student of B.Sc. (Forestry). He was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing private work. They were dependent on earning of deceased and on account of his untimely death, they have suffered loss of income. 7. Non-applicant No.1-owner-cum-driver of offending vehicle was proceeded ex-parte before the Claims Tribunal. 8. Non-applicant No.2- Insurance Company submitted its written statement denying the averments made in application including the fact that accident was caused by offending vehicle. It was further pleaded that deceased himself was responsible for the accident as he was riding motorcycle in intoxicated condition that too without wearing helmet, therefore, principle of contributory negligence is attracted. On 4 the date of accident, non-applicant was not possessing valid driving license to drive offending vehicle and even the offending vehicle was being plied without valid permit and fitness certificate. Thus there was violation of conditions of insurance policy, therefore, insurer cannot be held liable to indemnify the insured. 9. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the pleadings and evidence placed on record (oral and documentary both) by the respective parties has arrived at a conclusion that accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of non- applicant No.1-driver; there was no element of contributory negligence; there was no violation of any condition of insurance policy and accordingly, partly allowed claim application and awarded compensation of Rs.12,60,768/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. by taking monthly income of deceased as Rs.8140/- on notional basis treating the deceased as labourer. 10. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submits that deceased was working as ‘Snake Catcher’, earning Rs.15,000/- per month, however, the Claims Tribunal has fixed monthly income of deceased at Rs.8140/- and thereby committed mistake. Besides, deceased remained admitted for two days in hospital prior to his death and during this period, the amount was incurred on his medical treatment but 5 nothing has been awarded under this head. Nothing has been awarded under the head of loss of consortium also. Hence, she prays that the amount of compensation awarded to appellants be enhanced suitably. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent opposes submissions of learned counsel for appellants and submits that the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal. 13. As regards the income of deceased, according to appellants, the deceased was working as Snake Catcher and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but no evidence has been led on behalf of appellants to substantiate the claim that deceased was earning that much of amount from doing private job. In absence of any evidence, the Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of deceased at Rs.8140/- on the basis of wage rate fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. It is well settled that in the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence to prove the income, aid of the Minimum Wages Act can be taken to assess the income of deceased and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the tribunal was right in taking recourse to Minimum Wages Act to calculate the income of the deceased for the purpose of computing the loss 6 of dependency. 14. Postmortem report (Ex.P-9) shows that at the time of accident the deceased was 22 years of age and cause title of application shows that number of dependent family members is two, who are appellants before this Court, therefore, this Court finds no infirmity in fixing of future prospects, deduction of amount towards personal expenses and multiplier adopted by the Claims Tribunal and hence, confirms the same. However, perusal of impugned award reveals that while computing the compensation the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount to the claimants towards loss of consortium, besides award towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. 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, each of claimants is entitled to consortium under spousal, filial and parental respectively in case claimants are wife/husband, parents and children at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. In case at hand, appellants being the parents of deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium. It is ordered accordingly. 15. As regards non-grant of medical expenses, true it is that the claimants/appellants have claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- 7 towards medical expenses stated to have been incurred in the treatment of deceased while he was alive for two days after the accident. However, the appellants have not filed any document to show that medical expenses of Rs.1 Lakh was incurred in the treatment of deceased. Hence, in absence of any medical bills, in the opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal has not committed any mistake in not granting medical expenses. 16. For the foregoing discussion and reason, the appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent that the appellants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each i.e. Rs.80,000/-, for filial consortium. Now the appellants will be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.13,40,768/- (1260768 + 80000). The amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5 % p.a. from the date of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. Sd//- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/- SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI