1 2025:CGHC:33261 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1141 of 2019 1. Bahadur Vishwakarma S/o Bechan Singh Vishwakarma Aged About 42 Years R/o Bhadrapara, Chaitma, Police Station And Tahsil Pali, District Korba, At Present Barbhatha Kasaniya , Police Station And Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2. Geeta Bai Vishwakarma W/o Bahadur Vishwakarma Aged About 40 Years R/o Bhadrapara, Chaitma, Police Station And Tahsil Pali, District Korba, At Present Barbhatha Kasaniya , Police Station & Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (CG) ... Appellant-claimants versus 1. Paramjeet Singh S/o Gyan Singh, R/o Indira Nagar Hathkhoj Bhilai, PS Chhawani, Bhilai, District Durg (CG). ( Driver ), 2. M/s Tirupati Transport Corporation, Kuldeep Complex, Tatiband Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company, Branch Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer ), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ...Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Sameer Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 16/7/2025 1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Additional SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 Tribunal to the Court of learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba (for short the Claims Tribunal') vide award dated 10.5.2019 in Claim Case No.153/2017 for the death of deceased Surendra Vishwakarma in a road accident. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that appellants-claimants 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. 12,50,000/- under various heads, against death of Surendra Vishwakarma in a motor vehicular accident. According to claimants, who are parents of deceased, on 6.11.2017 at about 11:00 a.m. Surendra Kumar Vishwakarma was going to Chaitma from Barbhata-Kasaniya on his motorcycle and as soon he reached near Kasaniya Nursery, one trailer bearing CG04-JC-3752, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver (non-applicant No.1), dashed his motorcycle as a result Surendra Kumar sustained grievous injuries and died in Community Health Centre, Katghora during course of treatment. 3. Driver and owner of offending vehicle were proceeded ex- parte and no reply was filed on their behalf. 4. Non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company filed reply to claim application denying averments made therein. It was pleaded that driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid and 3 effective driving licence at the time of accident and, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 5. 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 trailer by non-applicant No.1 which resulted in death of deceased; relying on statement of claimant No.2-mother of deceased recorded a finding that deceased was dependent on his parents and as such, no loss of income has occasioned to them. It was also held that there was no violation of any condition of insurance policy. Consequently, the Claims Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- and fastened liability upon the non-applicants, jointly and severally, to satisfy the award. 6. Learned counsel for claimants/appellants submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation overlooking the fact that claimants are unfortunate parents who lost their son aged about 22 years. He submits that the Claims Tribunal considered anly few sentences of the entire evidence of claimant No.2 (AW-1) and came to the conclusion that the deceased was dependent upon his parents. The Claims Tribunal overlooked other part of the evidence of AW-1. As per pleadings made in claim application, on the date of accident the deceased was 4 working as Mason and earning Rs.4,500/- per month. Therefore, he prays that amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 opposing the submission of learned counsel for appellants, would submit that the Claims Tribunal justified in considering the evidence of mother of deceased who in her cross-examination has made categoric statement that deceased was dependent on them, he was unmarried and it is claimants who are bearing all the expenses of the deceased. There is no error in the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal warranting interference. 8. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused record of claim case. 9. Perusal of the pleadings made in claim application would show that the claimants, who are parents of deceased, have filed claim application under their signature specifically pleading that deceased was working as Mason and earning Rs.4,500/- per month. Appellant No.2-Geeta Bai Vishwakarma (AW-1), mother of deceased, in her cross examination, on a question being put to her, has replied that deceased was dependent upon them and he was unmarried. However, in the same para later on, she denied the suggestion given by learned counsel appearing on behalf of 5 insurance company that deceased was not earning anything and he was not doing any work. The Claims Tribunal considering only two lines of the evidence of appellant No.2 herein Geeta Bai Vishwakarma (AW-1) has recorded finding that deceased was non-earning member, which in the opinion of this Court is erroneous. 10. For arriving at a conclusion in particular in claim cases, the pleadings and the evidence, oral and documentary, has to be taken into consideration to ascertain the status, occupation and income of the deceased. Hon'ble Supreme Court even in case of death of a child for awarding just compensation has considered the notional income keeping in mind the minimum wage rate notified by the competent authority. Hence, in absence of proof of incorne of deceased, the Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed monthly income of deceased taking help of minimum wage rate prescribed by the Competent Authority for the relevant period and the area concerned, in which it failed. Therefore, finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that deceased was not earning and dependent upon his parents is not sustainable and accordingly it is repelled. 11. Perusal of record would show that in claim application and oral statement, the claimants have stated that at the time of accident the deceased was working as Mason and earning Rs.4,500/- per month, but in support thereof they have not 6 produced any admissible evidence to prove such an earning of the deceased. In such a situation, the Court / Tribunals normally refers to the minimum wage rate prescribed for skilled / unskilled / semi-skilled workers by the Competent Authority for the concerned area and period. However, since the claimants themselves have pleaded income of deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month, which is less than minimum wage rate prescribed by the competent authority for the period from 1.10.2017 to 31.3.2018 for an unskilled labourer of 'B' Zone area, I find it appropriate to accept income of the deceased as pleaded in claim application. Accordingly, monthly income of deceased is assessed as Rs.4,500/- per month. 12. To the income of deceased, as assessed above, 40% has to be added on account of loss of future prospects, in view of law laid down in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Since the deceased was bachelor, one-half is to be deducted from annual income of deceased towards his personal and living expenses. The deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident, hence multiplier applicable to his age group is '18'. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 appellants-claimants being 7 parents of deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of 'loss of filial consortium'. Further, in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has approved Rs. 15,000/- each for the conventional heads i.e. loss of estate and funeral expenses, hence, it is ordered that appellant-claimants are further entitled for Rs. 15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. 13. The compensation under other conventional heads need to be increased by 20% as per directives of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) wherein it is observed that there shall be increase of 10% in every three years. It is ordered accordingly. Now the compensation payable to claimants/appellants towards loss of estate and funeral expenses will be Rs.18,000/- each (15000 + 20% of 15000) and Rs.48,000/- each towards filial consortium. 14. For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants. 15. Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.4,500/- per month and after adding 40% towards future prospects, monthly income of deceased would come to Rs.6,300/- and annual income would be Rs.75,600/-. Out of this amount, one-half is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased and after deducting one-half, loss of dependency would come to Rs.37,800/- Applying multiplier of 8 18, the loss of dependency would be Rs.6,80,400/-. Besides this, appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs.48,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium. In addition to aforesaid amount, appellants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.18,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.18,000/- for loss of estate. Thus, total amount of compensation for which now appellants-claimants are entitled, comes to Rs.8,12,400/- This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% 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 appellants pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted from the amount of compensation as awarded above. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/