1 2025:CGHC:30066 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1098 of 2020 1 - Rajni Marche W/o Late Suresh Kumar Marche, Aged About 33 Years By Caste Marche, Permanent R/o Village Dhurkot, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Present R/o Khadpari Para Janjgir, Police Station And Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.................Claimant, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Aditya Kumar S/o Late Suresh Kumar Marche, Aged About 15 Years Minor And Presented Through His Mother Rajni Marche, By Caste Marche, Permanent R/o Village Dhurkot, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Present R/o Khadpari Para Janjgir, Police Station And Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.................Claimant, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ankita D/o Late Suresh Kumar Marche, Aged About 12 Years Minor And Presented Through Her Mother Rajni Marche, By Caste Marche, Permanent R/o Village Dhurkot, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Present R/o Khadpari Para Janjgir, Police Station And Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.................Claimant, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ragani D/o Late Suresh Kumar Marche, Aged About 9 Years Minor And Presented Through Her Mother Rajni Marche, By Caste Marche, Permanent R/o Village Dhurkot, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Present R/o Khadpari Para Janjgir, Police Station And Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.................Claimant, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - Ramadhin S/o Mayaram, Aged About 60 Years By Caste Marche, Permanent R/o Village Dhurkot, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Present R/o Khadpari Para Janjgir, Police Station And Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.................Claimant, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 6 - Jhulbai W/o Ramadhin, Aged About 58 Years By Caste Marche, Permanent R/o Village Dhurkot, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Present R/o Khadpari Para Janjgir, Police Station And Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.................Claimant, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants Versus 1 - Dhananjay Yadav S/o Late Ashok Yadav, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village W/14 Nutan Colony Janjgir, Police Station And Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh..(Driver Of Offending Vehicle).............Non-Applicant, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Gopal Sharma S/o Ramesh Sharma, R/o Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Vehicle).............Non-Applicant, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - New India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager Branch Office Sada Complex, Transport Nagar Korba, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Qumrul Aziz, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 03/07/2025 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 11.10.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 22/2018. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 11.01.2018, Suresh Kumar was going to his home situated at Khadparipara, Janjgir and when he reached near Kera Road, Janjgir, at that time, one Truck bearing registration no. CG 10 C 0478 (hereinafter referred as offending vehicle) driven by the Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed Suresh Kumar from behind and caused accident. In 3 the said accident, Suresh Kumar suffered serious injuries. He succumbed to his injuries. Subsequent to the said accident, FIR was registered bearing Crime No. 25/2018, P.S. Janjgir, District – Janjgir- Champa for the offence punishable under Sections 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The appellants/claimants in the claim application have pleaded that the Applicant No. 1 is the wife, Applicants No. 2 to 4 are children and Applicant No. 5 & 6 are the parents of the deceased. On the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 36 years, was doing the work of Plumber and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. Due to said accident, the appellants/claimants have their lost bread-winner, they were dependent upon the deceased for their livelihood. On the date of accident, the offending vehicle owned by the Non-Applicant No. 2 was insured with the Non-applicant No. 3 and thus, the claimants have claimed Rs. 52,00,000/- towards compensation. 4. The Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 denying the pleadings made in the claim application have submitted their reply and pleaded that the Non- applicant No. 1 was driving the vehicle in accordance with the traffic rules and have not caused any accident. They pleaded that they have been falsely implicated in the case. On the date of accident, Non- applicant No. 1 was possessing valid and effective driving license and the vehicle was insured with the Non-applicant No. 3, therefore, compensation if any is to be paid, it will be liability of the Non-applicant No. 3 to satisfy the same. 5. The Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company opposing the pleadings made in the claim application as also, the pleadings made by the Non- applicants No. 1 & 2 have denied the fact that the offending vehicle 4 was being driven by the Non-Applicant No. 1 rashly and negligently and the death of the deceased due to the accident caused by the offending vehicle. The Non-applicant No. 3 pleaded that on the date of accident, Non-Applicant No. 1 was not possessing valid and effective driving license as also, the permit. The vehicle was being plied in breach of conditions of the insurance policy. 6. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the facts and evidence brought on record, held that death of deceased was on account of motor accidental injuries suffered by him. The Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that the deceased was earning Rs. 7,500/- per month on the date of accident and the vehicle was not plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy. On the date of accident, the vehicle was insured by the Non-applicant No. 3, fastened liability upon Non-Applicant No. 3 to pay the amount of compensation of Rs. 10,82,500/- to the claimants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. The learned Claims Tribunal computed very less amount of compensation considering the income of the deceased as Rs. 7,500/- per month only. She contended that though the Claims Tribunal has considered the deceased to be a Skilled Labourer, however, the wages has not been assessed in accordance with the minimum-wages as fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Tribunal has not added any amount towards the loss of future prospects. 8. Lastly, she contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding the appropriate amount of compensation under the head of 5 consortium as the the Tribunal has awarded lump-sum amount of Rs. 75,000/- in other conventional heads which is not correctly awarded. In support of her contention, she places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC. 9. On the other hand, learned counsels for the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company opposes the submission of counsel for the appellants/claimants and would submit that that the amount of compensation awarded in the facts of the case is just and proper and does not call for any interference. He however, do not dispute the submission of counsel for the appellant with regard to the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Respondent No. 3 being insurer of the offending vehicle. 10.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case. 11.Perusal of the pleadings made in the claim application would show that the deceased Suresh Kumar met with a motor accident and suffered motor accidental injuries resulting in his death on 11.01.2018. The claimants have pleaded the occupation of the deceased as Plumber and income as Rs. 20,000/-. In support of the proof of occupation, the claimants have submitted one certificate issued by Navprayas issued under the signature of Jail Superintendent, District Jail Janjgir-Champa and examined Claimant No. 1 as AW-1. The learned Claims Tribunal considering the documentary and oral evidence as submitted by the claimants have considered the deceased to be a Skilled Labourer. 6 However, assessed his monthly income as Rs. 7,500/- to arrive at a conclusion of assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 7,500/- per month. The Claims Tribunal has considered the decision of this Court in the case of Sukhram Suryavanshi Vs. Nand Kumar Yadav reported in MAC No. 1599/2017 and the decision in case of Branch Manager, New India Insurance (correct name Assurance) Company Limited Vs. Sukhram Suryavanshi in MAC No. 1469/2017 wherein, High Court considered the income of the Mason as Rs. 250/- per day. While taking note of the aforementioned decision, the learned Claims Tribunal failed to consider that, the income in that case was assessed keeping in mind the date of accident which was prior to the date of accident in present case. 12.In the case at hand, the accident is of 10.01.2018 and therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal, if found the pleadings and evidence with respect to the income of the deceased to be not acceptable, could have taken into consideration the factors like the price index, cost of living, wage structure and could have also taken the help of the minimum-wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. In the case at hand, there is no material to suggest the wage rate prevailing on the date of accident at the place of residence of the deceased and therefore, I find it appropriate to take into consideration the minimum-wages fixed by the competent authority fixed for the period from 01.10.2017 to 31.03.2018 for the Skilled Labourer in ‘C’ zone areas as Rs. 9,360/-. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs. 9,360/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 7 13.The learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under the head of loss of future prospects. The award under the head of loss of future prospects was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and held that where the deceased was less than 40 years of age and not in permanent employment/self-employment, then, there shall be addition of 40% of the assessed income. In the case at hand, the age of the deceased was 36 years, he was not in permanent employment and therefore, there shall be addition of 40% of the assessed income towards the loss of future prospects. It is ordered accordingly. 14.The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a consolidated sum of Rs. 70,000/- towards the funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of spousal consortium and loss of love and affection. The award of compensation under the head of other conventional heads was quantified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) as Rs. 15,000/- towards the loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards the funeral expenses and Rs. 40,000/- towards the loss of consortium. The award of consortium is further clarified by the Hon’ble Surpeme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the types of consortium and held that the there are three types of consortium i.e. spousal consortium for widow/widower, parental consortium to children and filial consortium to parents. In the case at hand, the Appellant No. 1 is wife, Appellants No. 2 to 4 are children and Appellants No. 5 & 6 are parents of the deceased and therefore, they are entitled for Rs. 8 40,000/- each towards loss of spousal, parental and filial consortium (total Rs. 2,00,000/-) respectively 15.Further, in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076, Hon’ble Supreme court has held that the compensation under the head of love and affection subsumes the compensation awarded under the head of loss of consortium. For the foregoing discussion, the claimants will not be entitled for compensation under the head of loss of love and affection, but for the compensation under the head of loss of consortium. It is ordered accordingly. 16. For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants. 17. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.9360/- and since at the time of death, the deceased was 36 years old, therefore, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the income of deceased is required to be enhanced by 40% towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.13,104/- (9360+3744). Thus annual income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the compensation comes to Rs.1,57,248/- (13,104 x 12). Out of this amount, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and after deducting 1/4th of the annual income, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,04,832/- (1,57,248 – 52,416). By applying multiplier of 15, as applied by the Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency, total loss of dependency would come to Rs.15,72,480/- (1,04,832 x 15). Besides this, Appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards spousal, parental and filial consortium. Further, they are also entitled 9 for Rs. 15,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 18. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.18,42,480/- (15,72,480 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000). This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 19. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakkamma Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2021) 20 SCC 797, it is directed that the appellant will not be entitled for the interest on the additional amount of compensation for the delayed perio of 618 days. 20. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants No. 1 to 6 as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. 21. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 22. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey