1 2025:CGHC:19866 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1100 of 2020 1. Smt. Hiroundi Bai W/o Late Manoj Kumar Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o - House No. 31 Dongitrai Hasda - 11 Thana - Gobra Navapara, Tahsil, Abhanpur, District Raipur (CG) 2. Vashu Sahu S/o Late Manoj Kumar Sahu Aged About 1 Years Aged About 1-1/2 Years. 3. Koushilya Bia Sahu W/o Sahdev Ram Sahu Aged About 45 Years 4. Kumaruram Sahu W/o Sahdev Ram Sahu Aged About 50 Years Appellant No.2 is minor through legal guardian mother Smt. Hiroundi Bai. All are R/o House No.31 Dongitrai Hasda 11 Thana Gobra Navapara, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur (CG) ... Appellants-Claimants versus 1. Shekh Idu S/o Shekh Babbu Aged About 47 Years Occupation - Owner Cum Driver Of Car, R/o - Goharapadar, Urmal Road Manghipara, Tahsil And Thana - Devbhog District - Gariyabandh Chhattisgarh. (Owner Cum Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Car C.G. No. 04 / L. M. / 1638). 2. Ishwar Lal Nirmalkar S/o Jugal Nirmalkar Aged About 53 Years Occupation - Owner Cum Driver Of Bolero R/o - Village Baigatola, Thana Somani, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Owner Cum Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Bolero C.G. No. 08 / K. / 2162), 2 3. S. B. I. General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Pension Bada, S. B. I. Regional Office Campus, Pension Bada, Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Car C.G. No. 04 / L. M. / 1638) 4. National Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Babla Complex, G. E. Road Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Policy No. 290700311860001253/r72326792, Date Of Period 23/11/2018 To 22/11/2019 (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Bolero C.G. No. 08 / K. / 2162). ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. A.L.Singraul, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2 : None though served. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Santoshi Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 01/05/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is being heard finally. 2. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned 13th Motor Accidental Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 31.1.2020 passed in Claim Case No.180/2019. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 16.12.2018 Manoj Kumar Sahu along with his friend Trilochan Ram Nirmalkar 3 was going towards Nawagaon from Dongitarai on motorcycle bearing registration mark CG04/SP/3953. Manoj Kumar Sahu was driving motorcycle and Trilochan Ram was riding as a pillion. At about 2:00 p.m. when they reached near Kurra Petrol Pump located on Rajim-Abhanpur Road, the car bearing registration CG04/LM/1638(for short ‘offending vehicle’), driven by non-applicant No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed their motorcycle from behind as a result both of them fell down and Bolero vehicle bearing registration mark CG08-K-2162, coming from opposite direction and driven in a rash and negligent manner by non- applicant No.2, after crushing them moved ahead as a result Manoj Kumar Sahu sustained grievous injuries on his both legs, head and other parts of body. Manoj Kumar Sahu was taken to the Government Hospital, Nawapara where he was declared brought dead by the doctors. Accident was reported in concerned police station based on which Crime bearing No.293/2018 was registered for alleged offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304A of IPC. 4. Claimants/ appellants herein, who are widow, son and parents of deceased, filed an application claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.29,50,000/- under various heads on the ground that on the date of accident, deceased was 27 years of age, he was earning Rs.18,000/- per month 4 by doing work of Electrician as also operating drilling machine to demolish houses. They were dependent on earning of deceased and on account of his death in road accident, they have suffered loss of income. 5. Non-applicant No.1 submitted reply to application and denied the pleadings made therein except the admitted facts. It was pleaded that non-applicant No.1 did not dash motorcycle of deceased, he never drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner rather he drove vehicle in slow speed. Police have registered false case against him. Claimants are not entitled to get any compensation from him. 6. Non-applicant No.2 filed reply to application denying the averments made therein. It was pleaded that he has not dashed motorcycle of deceased, rather on the date of accident deceased was lying on road in injured condition with motorcycle and with intent to save his lfe, he had stopped his vehicle. He has been implicated in a false case. On the date of accident, non-applicant No.2 was possessing valid driving license; his vehicle was insured with non- applicant No.4 and therefore, if any compensation is awarded to claimants, then insurance company is liable to pay the same. 7. Non-applicant No.3- Insurance Company submitted its reply denying the averments made in application. It was further 5 pleaded that deceased himself was responsible for the accident. At the time of accident, deceased was not wearing helmet. Conditions of insurance policy has been violated, therefore, insurer cannot be held liable to indemnify the insured. 8. Non-applicant No.4 Insurance Company also filed its reply denying the averments made in application. It was pleaded that accident occurred due to negligence of deceased, therefore, he was liable for accident to the extent of 90%. Driver of offending vehicle has violated essential conditions of insurance policy, therefore, insurance company is not 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 a result of rash and negligent driving of non- applicant No.1-driver; there was no violation of any condition of insurance policy. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal partly allowed claim application and awarded compensation of Rs.13,55,200/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. by taking monthly income of deceased as Rs.6,000/- on notional basis. 10. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submits that the appellants in their application as also evidence have 6 specifically stated that deceased was earning Rs.18,000/- per month by working as Electrician. however, the Claims Tribunal has assessed monthly income of deceased at Rs.6,000/- notionally on the ground that claimants did not produce any concrete evidence establishing occupation and income of deceased. He submits that monthly income assessed is on lower side. In absence of claimants failure to prove income of deceased by placing solid evidence, it should have been assessed based on price index, cost of living, wage rate prevailing at that point of time or the wage notified under the Minimum Wages Act 1948. He further submits that the Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium, whereas, all the claimants who are survivors i.e. wife, children and parents of deceased, should have been awarded Rs.40,000/- each. Hence, he prays that the amount of compensation awarded to appellants be enhanced suitably. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for respective respondents opposes submissions of learned counsel for appellants and submit 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. 7 13. As regards the income of deceased, according to appellants, the deceased was doing the work of Electrician as well as work of demolishing house with drilling machine and thereby earning Rs.18,000/- per month, but no cogent and concrete evidence has been led on behalf of appellants to establish that deceased was earning that much of amount by doing aforementioned works. In absence of proof of income, the Claims Tribunal has assessed income of deceased on notional basis. The reason assigned by the Claims Tribunal for fixing income of deceased on notional basis appears to be justified, which does not call for interference. However, the notional income so fixed by the Claims Tribunal appears to be on lower side. It is well settled that where claimants failed to prove income of the deceased in accordance with law, the Claims Tribunal should determine income on the basis of wages prevailing in area, price index, cost of living or can take help of the wage rate notified under the Minimum Wages Act. In case at hand, the Claims Tribunal, on guess work assessed income of deceased to be Rs.6,000/- per month and did not resort to circulars/ notifications issued by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 notifying wage rate for skilled, unskilled and high skilled workers and therefore, fixation of income of deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month by learned Claims Tribunal is not 8 proper. 14. Accident in question occurred on 3.1.2019 and at that moment, deceased was residing in Gobara Nawapara, District Raipur, which comes in the category of ‘A’ Grade city. On the date of accident, wage rate fixed for a unskilled labourer of the area falling within ‘A’ Grade city by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was Rs.8,140/- per month. Thus it is clear that the Claims Tribunal has taken lesser notional income of deceased. Hence, this Court finds it appropriate to re-assess notional income of the deceased at Rs.8140/- p.m. instead of Rs.6,000/- p.m. as assessed by the Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. 15. Impugned award further reveals that while computing the compensation the Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under "loss of consortium" as laid down in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Nanu Ram (supra), according to which each claimant is entitled to consortium under spousal, filial and parental respectively in case claimants are wife/husband, parents and children of Rs.40,000/- each. Hence, I deem it appropriate to award the appellants, who are widow, children 9 and parents of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium respectively. It is ordered accordingly. 16. Since at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 27 years and not in permanent employment, the Claims Tribunal was correct in adding 40% towards loss of future prospects. Number of dependent members being four, deduction of one-fourth on account of personal living expenses of deceased is also in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Considering the age of deceased i.e. 27 years as mentioned in the postmortem report, the Claims Tribunal was right in applying multiplier of 17. The Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.15000/- each under the head loss of estate and funeral expenses, which is also in consonance with the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and needs no interference. 17.For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to the claimants/appellant. 10 18.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.8140/- per month and after adding 40% towards future prospects, the monthly income of deceased would come to Rs.11,396/- (8140+3256) and annual income would be Rs.1,36,752/-. Out of this amount, one-fourth is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased and after deducting one-fourth, annual dependency would come to Rs.1,02,564/-. Applying multiplier of 17, as applied by Claims Tribunal, the loss of dependency would be Rs.17,43,588/-. Besides this, appellant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium; appellant No.2 is entitled for Rs.40,000/- for loss of parental consortium and appellants No.3 and 4 are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each i.e. Rs.80,000/-, for filial consortium, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram (supra). In addition to aforesaid amount, appellants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.19,33,588/- (17,43,588 + 40000 + 40000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 15000 + 15000). This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% 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 appellant pursuant to 11 impugned award will be adjusted. 19.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/- SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI