-1- 2025:CGHC:32786 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1357 of 2019 1 - Smt. Leela Bai Sahu W/o Late Mithilesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 39 Years 2 - Khumeshwar Sahu S/o Late Mithilesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 20 Years 3 - Ku. Toshi Sahu D/o Late Mithilesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 17 Years 4 - Ku. Somi Sahu D/o Late Mithilesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 15 Years No. 3 No. 4, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Leela Bai Sahu, (Applicant No. 1) 5 - Smt. Derhin Bai W/o Kanwan Singh Sahu Aged About 66 Years All R/o Village Chhata, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Rajesh Kumar Sahu S/o Chhabi Ram Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Bajrang Chowk, Selud, P. S. Utai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh.......(Driver And Owner) 2 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Old RTO Office, Near Rajendra Park Chowk G. E. Road, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh, .. Respondent(s) ________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Siddhant Das, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate For Resp .No. 1 : None appears though served Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.07.24 10:21:29 +0530 -2- For Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 14/07/2025 1. This is claimants’ appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned First Additional Tribunal to the Court of First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg (CG) vide award dated 10.05.2019 passed in Claim Case No.191 of 2018. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants filed an application under Sections 166, 140 of the Act of 1988 before the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (CG) pleading therein that on 06.01.2018 at about 6.00 p.m. when Mithilesh Kumar Sahu was returning from village Utai to village Chhaata on his bicycle, on the way, one Car bearing No. CG.07/CA/1400 (hereinafter referred as offending vehicle) coming from Patan, driven rashly and negligently by non-applicant No.1 dashed Mithilesh Kumar due to which he suffered serious head injury and died. At the time of the accident, deceased was 40-years-old man, was working as a Mason earning Rs.15,000/- per month, was taking care of his dependents. Claimants have prayed for total compensation of Rs. 90 lakhs from non-applicants under various heads. 3. Non-applicant No.1 (Driver and Owner of offending vehicle) filing his written statement denied the pleadings made in the claim application and stated that at the time of incident, he was driving the vehicle at normal speed and accident occurred due to negligence on the part of -3- deceased. False report has been made against him. At the time of accident, he was driving the vehicle with valid license and insurance policy, hence, the insurance company is liable to pay amount of compensation, if any. 4. Non-applicant No.2 /Insurance Company in its written statement denied the pleadings made in the claim application and further pleaded that documents of income, age, occupation, dependency of the deceased have not been submitted. No accident occurred with Car no.-CG 07/CA/1400, FIR has been lodged against an unknown vehicle. Claim application is filed exaggerating the amount of compensation. There was violation of insurance policy conditions. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1 in which Mithilesh Kumar Sahu suffered fatal injuries and died. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found proved, held non-applicants liable to pay the amount of compensation. Assessing income of the appellant/claimant as Rs.9000/- per month, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.15,49,200/-. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month overlooking the pleading in the claim application and evidence that deceased was working as Mason under AW2 Doneshwar and was being paid Rs.12000/- per month as wages and not awarded appropriate sum under other conventional heads. -4- 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 Insurance Company vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and would submit that learned Tribunal upon appreciation of evidence available on record came to the conclusion that nature and occupation of income as pleaded in the claim application was not proved by claimant by placing cogent and admissible piece of evidence. He submits that witness Doneshwar Prasad Sahu (AW2) in his evidence has stated that he has not prepared the document Ex.P-10 which is certificated issued showing payment made to deceased of Rs.12,000/- per month and therefore finding recorded by learned Tribunal assessing income of deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month does not call for any interference. He however pointed out that learned Tribunal has though assessed age of deceased about 40 years has added 30% of the assessed income towards future prospects which is incorrect . He submits that deceased was not in permanent employment and therefore as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 appropriate addition would be 25% and not 30%. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 9. Perusal of the pleadings made in the claim application would show that deceased was working as Mason and working with Civil Contractor of Bhilai and Durg cities. On the date of accident deceased was working with AW2 Doneshwar Prasad Sahu. He issued certificate mentioning therein that deceased was working as Mason on contract with him and he was paying Rs.12,000/- per month as wages. -5- Doneshwar Prasad Sahu who is examined as AW2, in his evidence also, admitted this fact. Though in his cross-examination he admitted that he has himself not prepared the said document, but further clarified that document Ex.P-10 was prepared in front of him and he has put signature on it. 10. From the aforementioned evidence of Doneshwar Prasad Sahu AW2, it is apparent that document though was prepared by some other person was within the knowledge of witness AW2 and he was aware as to contents of documents and only thereafter he put his signature on the said document. Learned Claims Tribunal only recording that in cross-examination witness AW2 has admitted that he has not prepared the document had disbelieved the salary certificate Ex.P-10. It appears that learned Claims Tribunal has read only one line of entire evidence of AW2 and arrived at wrong conclusion. It is for the Claims Tribunal to consider entire evidence of witness to ascertain its reliability. As in the cross-examination, this witness has clarified that document was prepared in his presence and he also put signature on it, learned Claims Tribunal committed error in disbelieving the salary certificate/service certificate issued by Doneshwar Prasad Sahu AW2 (Civil Contractor-cum- Mason) under whom deceased was working. 11. Looking to the nature of employment under contractor who himself is a Mason and doing work on contract basis, it cannot be expected that either the deceased or AW2 could maintain the records of payment of wages to labourer. Claimants have submitted copy of mark-sheet of daughter of deceased and his son. Son of deceased is studying in Parthivi College of Engineering and Management, Bhilai-3, affiliated -6- with Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai. Copy of mark sheet of 4th Semester is filed as Ex.P-11 and also mark-sheet of daughter of deceased of Class- 12th and Class- 10th. Claimants have also placed on record the fee receipt and other payments made to the institution in which children of the deceased are studying. 12. The accident is dated 06.01.2018. In the facts of the case where this Court found the pleading of claimants that deceased was working as Mason prior to the date fo accident, he is to be treated as skilled labourer. Even the wages of skilled labourer is to be assessed keeping in mind the factors like cost of living, price index, wage structure and also minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act prevailing on the date of accident. 13. For the foregoing discussions finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal with regard to assessment of wages of deceased as Rs.9000/- per month is not sustainable and it is enhanced to Rs.12,000/- per month as mentioned in certificate Ex.P-10 issued by Doneshwar Prasad Sahu AW2 and proved by him. It is ordered accordingly. 14. Learned Claims Tribunal considering the age of deceased to be 42 years had rightly applied deduction of ¼ (one fourth) and multiplier of 14 which is to the tune of decision in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121. 15. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and has awarded only Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium. The award of compensation under head of loss of consortium is well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of -7- Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 . In case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court quantified the amount of compensation under head loss of consortium as Rs.40000/-. In case of Nanu Ram (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained types of consortium and held that wife/husband will be entitled for loss of spousal consortium of Rs.40,000/-, children will be entitled for loss of parental consortium of Rs.40,000/- each and parents of deceased will be entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of filial consortium. 16. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has observed that the compensation under conventional heads should be increased by 10% after every three years and therefore the compensation under head of loss of estate and funeral expenses will be Rs.16,500/- each and loss of consortium will be Rs.44,000/-. In this case, claimant No.1 being wife of deceased would be entitled for compensation of Rs.44,000/- (40000 x 10% = 44,000) towards loss of spousal consortium, claimant No. 2 to 4 being children of deceased will be entitled for grant of compensation towards parental consortium of Rs.44,000/- (40000 x 10% = 44,000) each and claimant No.5 being mother of deceased would be entitled to Rs.44,000/- (40000 x 10% = 44,000) towards loss of filial consortium. It is ordered accordingly. 17. So far as submission of learned counsel for respondent No.3 that learned Claims Tribunal erred in adding 30% of the assessed income towards future prospect is concerned, award of future prospects is well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra). In the case at hand, deceased was in between 40 years and below 50 -8- years of age and not in permanent employment and therefore in the opinion of this Court there shall be addition of 25 % of the assessed income towards future prospect instead of 30% as held by Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. 18. For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. Loss of Income (A) Income 12000 x 12 = 144000 (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 25% (144000 x 25% =36000) 144000 + 36000 = 1,80,000 (C) Deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses (1,80,000 x 1/4 =45000) 1,80,000- 45000 = 135000 (D) Multiplier of 14 135000 x 14 = 18,90,000 : Rs. 18,90,000 2. Funeral Expenses (15000 x 10% = 16500) : (+) Rs. 16,500 3. Loss of Estate (15000 x 10% = 16500) : (+) Rs. 16,500 4. Loss of spousal consortium to appellant/claimant No.1/wife (40000 x 10% = 44,000) : (+) Rs. 44,000 5. Loss of Parental Consortium of Rs.44,000/- (40000 x 10 % = 44,000) each to appellant/ claimants No. 2 to 4 : (+) Rs. 1,32,000 6. Loss of Filial Consortium of Rs.44000/- (40000 x 10 % = 44,000) to appellant/ claimant No.5/mother : (+) Rs. 44,000 -9- 7. Medical Expenses : (+) Rs. 5,000 Total compensation : Rs. 21,48,000 19. Now the appellants/claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs.21,48,000/- instead of Rs.15,49,200/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 20. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.f 2 21. Appeal is accordingly allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen