Page No.1 2025:CGHC:16664 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1104 of 2020 1 - Niranjan S/o Mahigal Aged About 58 Years Occupation - Labourer, R/o Village Mohanpur, Tahsil Udaipur, Police Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja,Chhattisgarh. 2 - Tuleshwar Singh S/o Niranjan Aged About 25 Years Occupation - Labourer, R/o Village Mohanpur, Tahsil Udaipur, Police Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Sunil Kumar S/o Vijay Kumar Aged About 27 Years Junadih, Police Station And Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of OffendingVehicle) 2 - Secretary Surguja Sahri Sarvajanik Yatayat Society, Ambikapur, Collectorate Campus, E- Service Center, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.(Owner Of Offending Vehicle) 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Ambikapur, Near Ambika Petrol Pump, Ambedkar Chowk, Banaras Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : None. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 09/04/2025 1. Notice sent to respondent No. 2 is reported to be awaited. 2. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that liability to satisfy the amount of award is upon respondent No.3 Insurance Company. The liability fastened upon respondent No.3 by the learned Claims Tribunal is not disputed by counsel for Page No.2 respondent No.3. Hence, the service of notice upon respondent No.2 is dispensed with. 3. With the consent of the parties, this appeal is heard finally. 4. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur District Surguja (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 22.02.2020 passed in Claim Case No.108/2019. 5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 26.04.2018, Gedi Bai (since deceased) was returning to village Mohanpur from village Andhla in CT Bus bearing registration No. CG15-AB- 0440 (for short ‘the offending vehicle’), when Gedi Bai was about to de-board from the bus near Jajga Turn, the driver of bus suddenly started the bus as a result Gedi Bai fell down on ground, sustained injuries on her head, back and leg. She succumbed to injuries on spot. Accident was reported to Police Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja based upon which offence under Section 304A of IPC was registered against driver of offending vehicle. Claimants/appellants herein filed an application seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- under various heads on the ground that on the date of accident, deceased was working as Labourer, earning Rs.4,000/- per month and they were dependent on earning of deceased. 6. Non-applicant No.1 in his reply has rejected all the allegations of the applicants and has stated that the applicants have filed this claim application on false and fabricated grounds. Apart Page No.3 from this, non-applicant No.1 had a valid and effective driving license to drive the bus on the date of the accident, therefore, application of claimants so far as it relates to non-applicant No.1 be dismissed. 7. Non-applicant No.2 filed reply to application and denied the entire pleadings made in application and sought dismissal of application on the ground that application filed by the claimants is based on false and frivolous grounds and the compensation claimed is highly exaggerated. 8. Non-applicant No.3- Insurance Company also filed its reply denying the averments made in application. It was pleaded that on the date of accident, the bus was being operated by non- applicant No.2 without there being valid documents. On the date of accident, non-applicant No.1 did not have a valid and effective driving license, as such there was breach of conditions of insurance policy. 9. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the pleadings and evidence placed on record (oral and documentary both) by the respective parties has arrived at the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver; there was no violation of any conditions of insurance policy; assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month and consequently, allowed claim application in part and awarded compensation of Rs.3,86,800/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. 10. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellant submits that the Page No.4 learned claims tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month only overlooking to the wage rate fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and prevalent on the date of accident. Nothing has been awarded to appellant No.2, who is the son of deceased, towards loss of consortium. Hence, he prays that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal be enhanced suitably. 11.Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that submission of counsel for appellant with respect to income of deceased is not correct. In the pleadings and the statement of witnesses recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal, it has come that the income of deceased on the date of accident was Rs.4,000/- per month. Learned Claims Tribunal has accepted the pleadings made in the application and the statement of the witnesses with respect to income of deceased to be Rs.4,000/- per month. He further submits that the amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper in the facts of the case, which does not call for any interference. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of Claims Tribunal. 13. So far as the submission of learned counsel for appellant with respect of income of deceased concerned, perusal of the pleadings made in application would show that appellants /claimants in their claim application have pleaded the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month i.e. Rs.48,000/- per Page No.5 annum. Witness PW-1 Tuleshwar Singh in his examination-in- chief, which is submitted in the shape of an affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, has stated the income of deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal with respect of income of deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month. Submission of counsel for appellants for the aforementioned reasons is not sustainable and accordingly, it is hereby repelled. 14.From the pleadings in application, it is evident that deceased was aged about 60 years and she was not in permanent employment. In the postmortem report (Ex.P-4) age of deceased is mentioned as 60 years. Thus, the Claims Tribunal was correct in adding 10% to assessed income of deceased on account of loss of future prospects. As there are total two dependent members, who are appellants before this Court, deduction of one-third towards personal expenses of deceased is correct. This Court also finds no illegality in applying multiplier of "9", because deceased was 60 years of age at the time of the accident and as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhit Transport Corporation & anr, reported in (2009) 6, SCC 121, for the age group 56 to 60 years proper multiplier is '9'. Award of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses is also as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, Page No.6 reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 15.However, perusal of impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium to appellant No.2, son of deceased. In case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited versus Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the husband, children and parents each are entitled for Rs,40,000/- towards loss of consortium. In case at hand, there is no dispute that appellant is the son of deceased who died in a road accident and therefore, appellant No.2 is also entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of parental consortium. It is ordered accordingly. 16.For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants. 17.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.4,000/- per month and after adding 10% towards future prospects because on the date of accident, age of deceased was 60 years working as labourer, the monthly income of deceased would come to Rs.4,400/- (4000+10% of 4000) and annual income would be Rs.52,800/-(4400x12). After deducting one-third towards personal and living expenses of deceased, as rightly deducted by the Claims Tribunal, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.35,200/-(52800-17600). As the deceased was 60 years, multiplier of 9 is applicable and therefore, applying multiplier of 9, the loss of dependency would be Rs.3,16,800/- (35200x9). Besides this, appellant No.1 and 2 are also entitled for a sum of Page No.7 Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of spousal consortium and parental consortium being husband and son of deceased, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram (supra). They are also entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of funeral expenses. Now total amount of compensation for which appellants are entitled for comes to Rs.426800/-(316800+40000+40000+15000+15000). This amount of compensation shall carry interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of application till its realization. Any amount already paid to claimants/ appellants as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 18.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 nisha SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI