1 2025:CGHC:43731 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 107 of 2019 1 - Kamal Narayan Tiwari S/o Chhannu Lal Tiwari Aged About 55 Years R/o Tikrapara, Police Station, Tahsil District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 2 - Abhijit S/o Kamalnarayan Aged About 23 Years R/o Tikrapara, Police Station, Tahsil District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 3 - Abhinav S/o Kamalnaraya Aged About 21 Years R/o Tikrapara, Police Station, Tahsil District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 4 - Anila D/o Kamalnarayan Aged About 19 Years R/o Tikrapara, Police Station, Tahsil District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) ... Appellants/claimants versus 1 - Ranjeet Chandravanshi S/o Shatrughan Lal Chandrawanshi Aged About 35 Years R/o Joba, Post, Thana, Tahsil And District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rajkumar Kesharwani S/o M.R. Kesharwani R/o Gurudwara Road, Shyam Nagar, Telibandha, Ravigram, Raipur, Post, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Divisional Manager Bhartiya Axa General Insurance Company Limited, Chawla Complex, Sai Nagar, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents Appellants : Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi and Ms. Palak Diwedi, 2 Advocate appears as Amicus Curie For Respondents : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment On Board 28/08/2025 1. As no representation is made on behalf of the appellant/claimants, this Court requested Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi and Ms. Palak Diwedi, learned Advocates, who are present in the Court, to assist the Court as Amicus Curie in this case. 2. There is an application(I. A. No. 01 of 2018) for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. On due consideration and for the reason stated in the application (I. A. No. 01 of 2018), delay of 267 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. As this appeal is of the year 2019, this Court is inclined to decide this appeal. 5. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V.Act’) has been filed by the appellants / claimants being aggrieved by award dated 06.01.2018 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 190 of 2016. 6. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs. 38,50,000/-, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs 3,77,000/- in favour of the appellants/claimants as compensation on account of death of deceased- Smt. Alka Tiwari in an unfortunate accident that occurred on 03-04.02.2011 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. Truck bearing registration No. CG.04/J.A./1450 by respondent No.1/driver. The said vehicle is owned by respondent No. 2 3 and insured with respondent No.3 / insurance company. 7. The appellants / claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the MV Act pleading inter alia Smt. Alka Tiwari died in a motor accident occurred on 03-04.02.2011 and she was aged about 46 years at the time of incident and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month by doing cloth stitching, embroidery- weaving, cloth painting and chakai work at home and by training other people. Therefore, above-stated amount was claimed. Respondent No.1/driver-owner of the offending vehicle resisted the claim application on various grounds and Respondent No.3 / insurance company took a plea that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle, hence, the insurance company may be exonerated from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants. 8. On the basis of above broad pleadings, learned Tribunal framed as many as 7 issues, decided those issues in favour of the appellants / claimants and awarded aforestated compensation, fastening liability of payment of compensation upon respondent No. 3/Insurance Company, which led to filing instant appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is shockingly on lower side, which deserves to be enhanced suitably. They would submit that even if the deceased was the homemaker but her contribution towards the welfare of her family in any other manner cannot be equated with her earning and learned Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased keeping this aspect of the matter and at least considered the minimum wages, which on the date of accident was prevailing. They would further submit that on account of death of only home maker, the mental trauma suffered by the appellants/claimants cannot be compensated in terms of money. They submits that in light of 4 judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Kumar Agrawal and anr. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and ors.1, adequate assessment for her earning may be made and compensation may be enhanced suitably. 10.Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. 11.I have heard learned counsel for the appellants/claimant and perused the record of Claims Tribunal including judgment impugned with utmost circumspection. 12.Admittedly, the deceased died in a motor accident that occurred on 04.02.2011 and finding of the negligence is against the respondent No. 1 / driver of the offending vehicle. The Claims Tribunal, on the basis of evidence adduced in this case, has assessed the daily income of deceased as Rs.100/- i.e. Rs.3,000/- per month for the purpose of computation of compensation, which, in the opinion of this Court, does not appear to be based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record. 13.In case of Arun Kumar Agrawal (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme has held as the contribution made by the wife to the house is invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money. The gratuitous services rendered by wife with true love and affection to the children and her husband and managing the household affairs cannot be equated with the services rendered by others and, thus, in paragraph 26, 27 and 62 which reads as under:- “26. In India the Courts have recognised that the contribution made by the wife to the house is invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money. The gratuitous services rendered by wife with true love and affection to the children and her husband and managing the household affairs cannot be equated with the services rendered by others. A wife/mother does not work by the clock. She is in the constant attendance of the family throughout the day and night unless she is employed and is required to 1 (2010) 9 SCC 218 5 attend the employer's work for particular hours. She takes care of all the requirements of husband and children including cooking of food, washing of clothes, etc. She teaches small children and provides invaluable guidance to them for their future life. A housekeeper or maidservant can do the household work, such as cooking food, washing clothes and utensils, keeping the house clean etc., but she can never be a substitute for a wife/mother who renders selfless service to her husband and children. 27. It is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of the services rendered by the wife/mother to the family i.e. husband and children. However, for the purpose of award of compensation to the dependents, some pecuniary estimate has to be made of the services of housewife/mother. In that context, the term `services' is required to be given a broad meaning and must be construed by taking into account the loss of personal care and attention given by the deceased to her children as a mother and to her husband as a wife. They are entitled to adequate compensation in lieu of the loss of gratuitous services rendered by the deceased. The amount payable to the dependents cannot be diminished on the ground that some close relation like a grandmother may volunteer to render some of the services to the family which the deceased was giving earlier. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 62. Alternative to imputing money values is to measure the time taken to produce these services and compare these with the time that is taken to produce goods and services which are commercially viable. One has to admit that in the long run, the services rendered by women in the household sustain a supply of labour to the economy and keep human societies going by weaving the social fabric and keeping it in good repair. If we take these services for granted and do not attach any value to this, this may escalate the unforeseen costs in terms of deterioration of both human capabilities and social fabric.” 14. Taking into consideration the date of incident, age of the deceased, minimum wages prevailed at the time incident, this Court inclined to take notional income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/- per months. 15.According to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680, the claimants will also be entitled for the compensation towards the loss of future prospect, as on the date of accident, the deceased was only 45 years of age 6 and, therefore, there shall be addition of 25% of the assessed income to the income of the deceased towards future prospect. 16. In view of above and taking guidance from the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court propose to re-compute the compensation in the following manner - Monthly income of the deceased Rs.5,000/- Future prospects 25% (5,000 + 1250) Rs.6,250/- Yearly income (6,250x12) Rs.75,000/- 1/4th deduction for personal expenses (Rs.75,000/- - Rs.18750/-) Rs.56,250/- Multiplier of 13, as applied by the Claims Tribunal (56,250 X 13 Rs.7,31,250/- Spousal Consortium + Funeral expenses + loss of Estate +Rs.70,000/- Filial Consortium (Rs.40,000/- each to appellant No.2 to 4) +Rs.1,20,000/- TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.9,21,250/- 17.The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,77,000/- which is deducted from the total compensation now awarded and the 7 enhanced compensation comes to Rs.5,44,250/-. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, interest @ 6% is also awarded on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of appeal to be deposited by the insurance company within a period of 60 days. After the amount of compensation is deposited by respondent No.2/insurance company, learned Tribunal shall pass appropriate order for apportionment, investment and disbursement. 18. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed. Copy of this order be sent to appellants and respondent No. 3 and their counsels also. 19.This Court appreciates the valuable assistance of Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi and Ms. Palak Diwedi, Advocates. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.09.04 17:21:00 +0530