1 2025:CGHC:15411 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 63 of 2020 1 - Smt. Tapeshwari W/o Late Lallu Ram Aged About 55 Years Occupation - House Wife, R/o Village - Pawanpur Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujnagar District Surajpur Chhattigarh. --- Appellant versus 1 - Harjindar Singh S/o Kishun Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Kedarpur Nagar, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. Present Address J.M.Q. Colony Ward No. 14 Vishrampur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Driver), 2 - Rakesh Kumar Singh S/o Ramdev Singh Aged About 45 Years Occupation Transporting R/o House No. 33, Mahavir Colony, Village Shivnandanpur Police Station Vishrampur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Owner), . 3 - The Divisional Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Division Office Ramatrade Center 1st Floor In Front Of Rajeev Palaza Near New Bus Stand Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Through Division Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Division Office Manendragarh Road Near Ambedkar Chowk Nagar Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) --- Respondents For Appellants : Ms. Akanksha Vishwakarma on behalf of Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Res. No.1& 2 : Mr. Nishikant Sinha, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 02/04/2025 1. Claimant/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District – Sarguja (for short ‘the Claims BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.04.04 16:14:01 +0530 2 Tribunal’) vide award dated 10.07.2019 passed in Claim Case No.231/2018 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.8,33,038/- as compensation in a death case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 27.03.2018, deceased Shiv Kumar, who was driver of the vehicle bearing No.C.G.15/AC-4071 (Hereinafter referred as “Tralla No.2”) was driving the vehicle carefully at medium speed as per the instruction given by its owner and was going to Vishrampur after loading coal from Amera Mines. Ahead of him, respondent No.1, was driving the vehicle bearing No.C.G.-04/JC-5087 (Hereinafter referred as “Tralla No.1”) in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly stopped the Tralla No.1 near Bardodhi Chowk due to which Tralla No.2, driven by deceased Shiv Kumar collided with the rear part of Tralla No.1 and met with an accident. In the said accident, Shiv Kumar suffered grievous injuries in his hand, head and other parts of the body, which ultimately led to his death. 3. Claimants/appellant being the legal heirs/mother of the deceased, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.21,06,000/- pleading therein that at the time of accident, deceased was aged about 20 years, working as driver and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. It was also pleaded that the claimant/appellant was dependent upon the deceased and he was the sole bread earner of his family. Claimant has also sought compensation under all other heads as are available to her like funeral expenses, for love and affection and for loss of estate etc. 3 4. Respondents No.1 and 2 jointly filed their reply denying the averments made in the application. It was pleaded that in-fact respondent No.1 was driving the vehicle (Tralla No.1) carefully at medium speed and it was the deceased who was driving the Tralla No.2 in rash and negligent manner and dashed Tralla No.1 from rear side. Respondent No.1 was having valid and effective driving license and the vehicle was insured with respondent No.3, therefore, the insurance company shall liable to pay compensation, if any. 5. Non-applicant No.3-Insurer of offending vehicle, submitted reply to claim application and denied the pleadings made therein. It was also pleaded that claim petition was filed on the false and fabricated grounds. It was further pleaded that at the time of accident, the respondent No.1 was not having any valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. There was breach of condition of insurance policy, hence, insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 6. Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, the learned Claims Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non- applicant No.1, due to which deceased suffered grievous injuries and died. Breach of Policy condition was not found to be proved. Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.8,33,038/- along with interest @ 7% per annum, fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation. 7. Learned counsel for appellant submits that Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation. It is submitted that learned Claims 4 Tribunal failed to consider the evidence brought on record regarding the income of deceased and erroneously assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5000/- per month on notional basis. He contended that the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have calculated the amount of compensation based on the Minimum Wages Act as fixed by the competent authority, however, the income of the deceased has been assessed only to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-, which is on lower side. It is contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of future prospects as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. He prays that the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 8. Learned counsel for respondents opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant. He submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation on each and every head. The deduction and multiplier are rightly applied by the Claims Tribunal. The impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is on proper appreciation of facts and evidence brought on record by the respective parties, which does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the impugned award. 10. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 and 2 are driver and owner and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Liability to satisfy the award is upon respondents jointly and severally. It is also not in dispute that appellant is the legal representatives/mother of the deceased Shiv Kumar. 5 11. So far as the submission with respect to the income of the deceased is concerned, it was pleaded and stated by the claimant that the deceased was working as driver and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. Perusal of the record of the Claims Tribunal would show that the appellant failed to prove the income of the deceased by producing admissible piece of evidence, hence, I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the appellant failed to prove the income as pleaded and stated of the deceased, however, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in not considering the income of the deceased taking the help of notification under the Minimum Wages Act prevailing for the said period and have taken the income of the deceased on notional basis as Rs.5,000/- per month. The accident was dated 27.03.2018 and according to the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act for a period from 01.10.2017 till 31.03.2018, the income of the unskilled labour fixed for Category-C city is Rs.7800/-. The deceased was resident of District Surajpur, therefore, I find it appropriate to accept the income of the deceased fixed under the Minium Wages Act of Category -C city as Rs.7,800/- per month. Accordingly, monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.7,800/- for computing his income. It is ordered accordingly. 12. The learned Claims Tribunal under the head future prospects, added 40% in the income of the deceased, for the purpose of computing compensation as at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 19 years and was self employed, which is correct, as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 6 SCC 680. Accordingly, after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs.3120/- in the monthly income of the deceased, the total monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.10,920/-. Accordingly, annual income of the deceased works out to Rs.1,31,040/-. There is no dispute with respect to deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenses and multiplier of 18 applied by the Claims Tribunal. Accordingly after deduction of 1/2 i.e. Rs.65,520/- towards personal expenses, the annual loss of dependency works out to Rs.65,520/-. After applying the multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.11,79,360/-. The Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium, which is hereby maintained. Likewise an amount of Rs.7,038/- awarded towards treatment of deceased before his death is also maintained. 13. On the basis of above, the compensation calculated by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- S.N. Head Amount. 1. Loss of income/dependency : Rs.11,79,360.00 2. For loss of filial consortium to the appellant : Rs. 40,000.00 3. For loss of estate : Rs. 15,000.00 4. For funeral expenses : Rs. 15,000.00 5. Expenses towards treatment of deceased : Rs. 7,038.00 Total Compensation : Rs.12,56,398.00 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellant shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.12,56,398.00. Any amount paid to 7 the appellant as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram