1 / 6 2025:CGHC:31438 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1066 of 2019 1. Subhesh Jogi S/o Late Heeralal Jogi Aged About 23 Years 2. Champa Bai Jogi W/o Late Heeralal Jogi Aged About 48 Years Both are R/o Ghoghrapara Ward No. 8, Pandaria, At Present R/o Manjhwapara Jarhabhatha, Police Station Civil Line, Tahsil and District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants/ Applicants/ Claimants versus 1. Mulchand Chelkar S/o Pundas Chelkar Aged About 22 Years R/o Village - Gandhiwadih, Police Station and Tahsil Patharia, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 2. Khilesh Kumar Gahire S/o Rohit Kumar Gahire Aged About 22 Years R/o Village - Gandhirwadih, Police Station and Tahsil Patharia, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh (Owner) 3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, Branch Office Third Floor Gurukripa Tower, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ---Respondents/ Non-applicants ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Ms. Pranoti Das, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Ashutosh Rathore, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 08/07/2025 1. Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 6 compensation, challenging the award dated 30.04.2019 passed by Learned Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 255/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 8,56,240/- as compensation in motor accidental death case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 10.09.2017 Subhesh Jogi along with her wife Usha Bai was going from his native place Pandariya to Manpur on motorcycle no. CG09JE1255. When he reached near village Bijatarai, non-applicant No. 1 while driving his motorcycle No. CG28B6318 (henceforth “offending motorcycle”) rashly and negligently coming from opposite direction, dashed the motorcycle of Subesh Jogi and caused accident. In the accident, Subhesh Jogi and Usha Bai suffered grievous injuries. They were admitted to Mundra Hospital, Bilaspur where during the course of treatment Usha Bai died. 3. Appellants, husband and mother-in-law of deceased filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 18,42,000/- on the basis of pleadings made therein. 4. Respondent No. 1 / Non-applicant No. 1 -driver of the offending motorcycle filed reply to the application and denied the pleadings made therein. It was further stated that on the date of accident, offending motorcycle was insured with non-applicant No. 3. 5. Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that on the date of accident, offending motorcycle was being driven in breach of conditions of insurance policy as the driver of the offending motorcycle did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. 3 / 6 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased -Usha Bai Jogi died because of grievous injuries suffered by her in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending motorcycle driven by non-applicant No. 1. Contributory negligence on the part of appellant injured, breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved. Calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 8,56,240/- as total compensation with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization and fastened liability to satisfy the award upon non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company. 7. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is much less than what the claimants are entitled for. She submits that the Claims Tribunal overlooking the date of accident, nature of occupation pleaded, assessed income of deceased as ₹ 5200/- per month. She contended that the Tribunal though held the occupation of deceased to be one fo the daily wage labourer, however, has not taken into consideration the minimum wages as fixed by the competent authority for unskilled labourer. She next contended that the Claims Tribunal has deducted 1/2 towards personal and living expenses instead of 1/3 which is contrary to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. She next contended that the Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount of compensation towards loss of foetus as along with deceased there was death of foetus also in the womb of the deceased. 8. Learned counsel for respective respondents opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants-claimants and would submit that claimants failed to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased by producing clinching evidence, therefore, Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the 4 / 6 income of deceased on notional basis. It is submitted that thee is no suggestive evidence in the record of the claim case to conclude that there was death of foetus and there is no such mention in the post mortem report also. Therefore, the observation made by the Claims Tribunal in para-7 of the impugned award is perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 10. Sofar as the submission made by learned counsel for appellants-claimants with regard to assessment of income of deceased on the date of accident is concerned, admittedly there is no clinching and admissible piece of evidence available in record to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased as pleaded in the claim application. In the aforementioned facts of the case, Claims Tribunal justified in taking recourse to assess income of deceased on notional basis, however, fell into error in not taking into consideration factors like age of deceased, date of accident, cost of living, price index and wages prevailing on the date of accident ie.,of the year 2017, in the area of which deceased was resident and has not considered minimum wages fixed by the competent authority for the unskilled, semi skilled and skilled labourer. As the appellant-claimant failed to prove nature of occupation and income of deceased, I find it appropriate to hold that the occupation of deceased to be one of the unskilled labourer. 11. As there is no material to suggest the wages prevailing at the place where the deceased was resident of, therefore, I find it appropriate to take help of minimum wages fixed by the competent authority and prevailing within the State of Chhattisgarh. Deceased was resident of Bilaspur and as per the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, minimum wages fixed for the period from 01.10.2017 till 31.03.2018 for 5 / 6 unskilled labourer for C-Zone area is ₹ 7,930/- per month. Therefore, the monthly income of deceased on the date of accident is assessed as ₹ 7,930. It is ordered accordingly. 12. Further perusal of award would show that the Claims Tribunal has correctly added 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects, applied multiplier of 18 and further awarded ₹ 15,000 towards loss of estate, ₹ 15,000 towards funeral expenses, which is to the tune of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma (supra) and further awarded ₹ 40,000 towards loss of consortium to appellant No. 1. The award of compensation under the head of loss of consortium to appellant No. 1 appears to be correct in the facts of the case and it does not call for any interference. 13. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires recomputation, which is as under. Particulars Compensation A) Annual Loss of income = ₹ 95,160/- (₹ 7930x12) B) Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 40% (₹ 95160 + 40% of ₹ 95160 = ₹ 1,33,224) C) Deduction of 1/2 towards personal and living expenses (₹ 1133224 x 1/2= ₹ 66612); D) Multiplier of 18 ₹ 66612 x 18 = ₹ 11,99,016/- ₹ 11,99,016/- Loss of Consortium to Appellants (₹ 40,000 each) ₹ 80,000/- Loss of estate ₹ 15,000/- Funeral Expenses ₹ 15,000/- Total ₹ 13,09,016/- 14. Now the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 13,09,016/- instead of ₹ 8,56,240/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount paid to the 6 / 6 appellants-claimants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Res of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 15. As far as the submission of learned counsel for appellants-claimants that the Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount of compensation against the loss of foetus in the womb of deceased is concerned, though the Tribunal considered Ext. P-7, post-mortem report for making such an observation, however, upon perusal of post-mortem report placed on record as Ext. P-7, this court does not find any mention of fact of presence of foetus in the womb of deceased. In absence of any such evidence, the submission of learned counsel for appellants-claimants seeking compensation against loss of foetus is not sustainable and it is hereby repelled. 16. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn